LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

GIFT  OF" 


i 
Accession  No.fo  fa  ?.£jr   .    Class  No. 


329  Wabash  Avenue, 
Chicago,  July,  1897. 


Dear  Sir :—  / 

We  beg  to  send  you,  for  your  library,  a 
copy  of  a  work  entitled,  "Who  Invented 
the  Reaper?" 

During  the  last  century  great  progress 
has  been  made  along  all  the  lines  of  light- 
ening human  labor;  especially  in  the  devel- 
opment of  agricultural  implements  has  this 
progress  been  marked,  and  the  Reaper  has 
done  more  than  any  other  article  of  field 
machinery  to  relieve  the  farmer  of  his 
harvest  burden— the  gathering  of  his  crops. 

This  small  book  is  the  result  of  investi- 
gation into  the  historical  records  upon  this 
subject,  and  will  be  interesting  to  the  student 
of  history,  as  showing  that  the  honor  of  the 
invention  of  the  first  successful  Reaper  rests 
with  the  late  Cyrus  H.  McCormick.  We 
trust  that  it  may  be  acceptable,  and  find  a 
place  upon  your  shelves. 

Respectfully  yours, 
McCORMICK  HARVESTING 

MACHINE   COMPANY. 


C 


WHO  LNVENTED  THE  REAPER? 


AN  ANSWER  TO  THE  PROTEST  STATEMENT  SAID  TO 

HAVE  BEEN  FILED  AT  THE  TREASURY 

DEPARTMENT 


R.   B.   SWIFT. 


v» 


S 


J 


nrx 


WHO  INVENTED  THE  REAPER? 


AN  ANSWER  TO  THE  PROTEST  STATEMENT  SAID  TO  HAVE 
BEEN  FILED  AT  THE  TREASURY  DEPARTMENT. 


By  R.  B.  Swift. 

This  Protest  was  recently  published  anonymously.  It  undertakes 
to  prove  that  Hussey  invented  the  reaper,  and  therefore  the  picture  of 
Cyrus  H.  McCormick  should  not  be  put  on  a  new  banknote.  The  Pro- 
test, as  published,  was  prefaced  by  the  statement  that  it  was  prepared 
by  the  representatives  of  the  manufacturers  of  harvesting  machines,  and 
that  "The  opportunity  will  at  last  be  presented  to  settle  the  question 
forever."  Let  any  who  are  interested  in  this  subject  read  the  facts 
herewith  given  and  judge  for  themselves  as  to  the  merits  of  the  case. 

The  question  is  not,  Who  first  had  an  idea  that  it  would  be  de- 
sirable to  reap  by  machinery?  but  Who  made  the  first  machine  that 
worked  successfully?  A  flying  machine  that  could  carry  passengers  to 
Xew  York  in  five  hours  would  be  a  great  invention.  Many  have  planned 
and  built  and  patented  flying  machines,  yet  no  one  has  produced  a  suc- 
cessful one,  and  the  man  who  will  combine  the  devices  that  will  make 
a  practical  flying  machine  is  truly  the  inventor,  even  though  he  make 
use  of  levers,  springs,  frames  and  devices  that  others  have  tried  and 
with  which  they  have  failed. 

Before  the  year  1831  there  are  accounts  of  attempts  to  make  a 
reaper,  and  some  of  the  machines,  it  is  said,  did  a  few  hours  work 
when  all  conditions  were  favorable.  One  or  two  of  the  earlier  ma- 
chines had  devices  that,  since  being  combined  in  a  practical  way  with 
other  devices,  have  found  a  place  in  the  successful  reaping  machine. 
It  is  claimed  that  Ogle,  in  1822,  combined  more  of  the  elements  neces- 
sary for  success  than  any  other  inventor,  but  the  one  machine  he 
claimed  to  have  built  lacked  certain  necessary  features,  and  he  did  not 


arrange  some  of  those  he  had  so  they  would  operate.  His  machine 
failed.  Not  one  was  sold.  He  did  not  even  take  a  patent  and  the  world 
profited  nothing  by  his  labors.  With  the  knowledge  gained  from  fifty 
years  of  experience  with  reapers,  it  is  pointed  out  that  only  a  few 
changes  would  have  been  necessary  for  him  to  have  produced  a  suc- 
cessful reaper.  He  was  a  schoolmaster,  a  visionary  inventor  without 
mechanical  skill,  and  his  reaper  was,  and  would  to-day  be,  a  failure. 

Bell,  in  1828,  built  a  push-machine,  a  great  ark  on  four  wheels, 
having  a  cutting  device  consisting  of  shears  with  blades  sixteen  inches 
long.  A  few  of  these  machines  were  built,  but  "  from  their  intricacy 
they  fell  into  disuse."  Bell's  countrymen  have  claimed  the  invention 
of  the  reaper  for  him,  but  have  failed  to  show  that  his  machine  was  or 
could  be  a  success. 

The  Protest  also  refers  to  Pitt's  machine.  This  machine  was  not 
even  a  reaper,  as  it  did  not  have  a  cutting  apparatus.  It  had  a  re- 
volving cylinder  with  rows  of  combs  to  strike  into  the  heads  of  grain 
and  tear  them  off.  It  was  a  failure.  Randall's  machine  is  also  men- 
tioned as  having  been  operated  in  New  Jersey  in  1833.  Randall  made 
a  model  which  he  exhibited  at  a  Mechanics'  Fair  in  Utica,  N.  Y.,  on 
January  15,  1835.  His  patent  was  issued  in  April  of  1835  and  his  first 
machine  built  for  the  harvest  of  1835.  The  machine  was  a  failure. 
It  was  so  pronounced  a  failure  that  Randall  did  not  restore  his  patent. 
Along  in  the  fifties  Randall  was  a  willing  witness  for  pay,  and  made  an 
ex  parte  affidavit  in  the  McCormick  vs.  Seymour  &  Morgan  suit, 
swearing  his  invention  'back  to  1830.  Having  never  built  a  machine 
for  sale,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  he  sold  his  recollection,  but 
under  the  stimulus  of  pay  it  was  too  active.  He  was  produced  for 
cross-examination  and  convicted  by  the  testimony  of  his  own  son  and 
others  of  swearing  falsely  and  of  altering  his  model.  So  clearly  was 
Randall  convicted  that  Mr.  Justice  Nelson  did  not  even  refer  to  him 
in  his  charge  in  that  case.  He  referred  to  the  machines  of  Bell, 
Schnebly,  Hussey,  Moore  and  Hascall,  Reed  and  Woodward,  saying: 

"  With  the  exception  of  the  patent  and  machine  of  Hussey,  not 
one  of  the  machines  referred  to  ever  went  into  general  or  successful 
operation.  Why  they  failed  we  do  not  know.  What  was  the  secret, 
what  the  defects,  we  are  not  told.  All  we  know  is  that  they  were  un- 
successful experiments." 

Whatever  question  there  is  lies  between  McCormick  and  Hussey. 


Both  McCormick  and  Hussey  had  machines  in  the  harvest  of  1833, 
and  both  applied  lor  patents  before  the  harvest  of  1834.  There  is  an 
account  of  Hnssey's  machine  published  in  the  fall  of  1833,  an(^  one 


MECHANICS'   MAGAZINE, 


REGISTER  OF  INVENTIONS  ANT)  IMPROVEMENTS. 


To  the  Eiluor  .>f  the  >!•• : 
DKAK  SIK,— -f  >('' 
jtloscriptiwt  .• 
ibSy  t<y  your  r 


[A"*!**»CR    *. 

.  of  a  friciKi  t»  JeH  iJwrat  of 


H.    M  COSMIC*. 


:  -ir  r»f  w M.J,  with  bent  t<?*th ;  i',  reel  poH«y ;  W, 
rce! ;  X,  »\  h-rf-1  <>l"  16  taehe*  <Jian»»»ler ;  Y,  re*l  post. 

Machine,  agrof  a.         The  |>lat{bnn  A  is  of  plank,  made  fast  to 

a  frrtm<'  of  wood,  for  receiving  tl»o  grain  whea 

•      it    until   enough  ha« 


of  McCormick?s  in  the  Lexington  Union  and  in  the  Mechanics'  Maga- 
zine, also  in  the  fall  of  1833.  Hussey  sent  the  editor  of  the  Mechanics' 
Magazine  a  picture  of  his  machine  in  1834,  and  so  did  McCormick. 


6 

The  photolithographic  cuts  in  this  article  are  reproductions  of  these 
pictures. 


I.-WHO  WAS  FIRST  WITH  A  MACHINE  * 

The  history  of  Hussey's  reaper  as  herewith  presented  shows  that 
it  never  was  a  success.  As  McCormick's  was  a  success,  it  therefore 
makes  no  difference  which  one  was  first  in  point  of  time.  But  in  ad- 
dition to  this  the  facts  clearly  demonstrate  McCormick's  priority. 

In  the  suit  of  McCormick  vs.  Manny,  Hussey  testified  on  the  28th 
day  of  August,  1855,  and  was  asked  this  question  and  gave  this  answer: 

"Have  you  invented  and  used  any  reaping  machine,  and  if  so, 
how  long  since? 

"  I  invented  and  used  a  reaping  machine  in  1833." 

Hussey  never  claimed  an  earlier  date  of  conception  than  1833. 
He  published  a  pamphlet  in  1854,  written  by  his  friend,  Edward  Stab- 
ler, entitled,  "  A  Brief  Narrative  of  the  Invention  of  Reaping  Ma- 
chines/' in  which  is  the  following  sentence: 

"  Neither  Hussey  nor  anyone  else  for  him  has  ever  asserted  that 
his  invention  was  prior  to  1833." 

In  the  Lexington  Union,  September  18,  1833,  following  a  long 
description  of  McCormick's  machine,  is  the  following  testimonial : 

"  July  18,  1833. 

"  I  have  seen  Mr.  Cyrus  H.  McCormick's  grain  cutting  machine 
in  operation  for  two  seasons.  It  cut  for  me  this  season-  I  think  it 
will  perform  well  where  the  ground  is  free  of  rocks  and  stumps ;  and 
will  be  a  great  saving  "over  hand  labor  and  can  be  so  constructed  as  to 
cut  much  wider  than  at  present,  and  I  think  it  well  worth  the  attention 
of  the  public.  I  think  it  will  cut  about  12  acres  per  day  by  being  well 
attended.  (Signed)  JOHN  WIER." 

"  I  certify  that  Cyrus  H.  McCormick's  reaping  machine  cut  1 1 
acres  of  wheat  for  me  on  the  sixth  day  of  this  month,  and  the  grain  was 
cut  clean  and  neat. 

"  July  13,  1833.  WM.  MOORE." 

This  Wier  testimonial  carries  the  McCormick  machine  back  to 
1832,  and  the  Moore  testimonial  shows  that  it  was  a  success. 

The  Mechanics'  Magazine  of  April,  1834,  contained  the  picture 
of  Hussey's  reaper  that  we  herewith  produce.  This  came  to  McCor- 


mick's  notice,  arid  he  wrote  the  editor  of  that  magazine  from  Rock- 
bridge,  Ya.,  under  date  of  May  20,  1834,  as  follows: 

"  To  the  Editor  of  the  Mechanics'  Magazine: 

"Dear  Sir. — Having  seen  in  the  April  number  of  your  magazine 
a  cut  and  description  of  the  reaping  machine    said  to  have  been  in- 


MECHANICS'   MAGAZINE, 

A  :»*  D 
REGISTER  OF  IXVEXTIOXS  AXD  D1PROVE3IEXTS. 


night !    The  mi»d  would  be  as  ricbcs  coffered  ;  Their  s 
iiig&njoug  society."— SPECTATOR. 


j;r--r.v  s  GRAI.V  CCTTER, 


vented  by  Obed  Hussey,  of  Ohio,  last  summer,  I  would  ask  a  favor 
of  you  to  inform  Mr.  Hussey  and  the  public  through  your  columns, 


8 

that  the  principle,  namely,  cutting  grain  by  means  of  a  toothed  in- 
strument, receiving  the  rotary  motion  from  a  crank,  with  the  iron  teeth 
projecting  above  the  edge  of  the  cutter,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing 
the  grain  from  partaking  of  its  motion,  is  a  part  of  the  principle  of 
my  machine  and  was  invented  by  me,  and  operated  on  wheat  and  oats 
in  July,  1831.  This  can  be  attested  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  the  pub- 
lic and  Mr.  Hussey,  as  it  was  witnessed  by  many  persons.  Conse- 
quently, I  would  warn  all  persons  against  the  use  of  the  aforesaid  prin- 
ciple, as  I  regard  and  treat  the  use  of  it,  in  any  way,  as  an  infringe- 
ment of  my  rights.  .  .  .  The  revolving  reel,  as  I  conceive,  con- 
stitutes a  very  important,  in  fact,  indispensable,  part  of  my  machine. 
"  Very  respectfully  yours,  etc., 

"  CYRUS  H.  McCORMICK.'' 

As  Mr.  McCormick  stated  in  this  letter,  the  fact  of  his  having  suc- 
cessfully operated  his  reaper  in  July  of  1831  can  be  proven  "  to  the  en- 
tire satisfaction  of  the  public."  The  fact  that  he  did  so  operate  it  in 
1831  was  not  disputed  for  years,  and  Hussey  admitted  its  use  in  1831  in 
a  brief  filed  by  him  in  1848  before  the  Board  of  Commissioners  for  the 
Extersion  of  Patents.  Referring  to  McCormick' s  testimony  (at  the 
taking  of  which  he  was  present)  to  prove  the  use  of  his  machine  in  1831, 
Hussey  wrote: 

"  There  are  but  two  points  satisfactorily  proved  which  are  not  in 
the  records  of  the  Patent  Office,  to  wit:  the  date  of  the  first  trial  of 
the  machine,  and  the  abandonment  by  C.  H.  McCormick  of  the  double 
finger/' 

At  this  date  there  is*  but  one  living  witness  of  the  working  of  the 
reaper  in  1831,  and  he,  in  1848,  testified  under  oath  to  its  successful 
operation  in  1831.  There  are  in  existence  numerous  affidavits  (as  yet 
unpublished)  of  persons  who  saw  the  reaper  at  work  in  1831.  There  is, 
also,  on  file  in  the  Patent  Office  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  the  sworn  tes- 
timony of  seven  witnesses,  taken  in  the  spring  of  1848,  some  of  whom 
v/ere  cross-questioned  by  Hussey,  to  the  fact  that  Cyrus  H.  McCor- 
mick's  reaper  did  successful  work  in  the  harvest  of  1831.  Fifty  years 
ago,  when  dozens  of  witnesses  were  living,  no  one  disputed  the  fact 
that  McCormick's  reaper  successfully  worked  in  wheat  and  oats  in 
the  harvest  of  1831,  and  no  one  who  knows  the  facts  disputes  it  now. 

The  Committee  on  Patents  of  the  United  States  .Senate  reported 
March  30,  1852,  when  there  were  bills  pending  before  the  Committee 
for  the  extension  of  both  Hussey's  and  McCormick's  first  patents,  as 
follows : 


9 

"The  testimony  was  thereupon  taken,  in  compliance  with  the  or- 
der of  the  Board,  and  by  the  proof  submitted  on  the  part  of  said 
McCormick  it  appears  conclusively  that  he  invented  his  machine,  then 
practically  and  publicly  tested  its  operation  in  the  harvest  of  1831." 

And  that  "  from'  the  exhibits  referred  to  your  committee,  it  ap- 
pears that  his  (Hussey's)  machine  was  first  constructed  and  operated  in 


It  was  then  that  Hussey  answered,  saying  that  the  priority  of 
McCormick  should  not  affect  his  invention,  as  "  our  machines  do  not 
•conflict/' 

The  late  Honorable  Edmund  Burke,  Commissioner  of  Patents  in 
1848,  wrote  Senators  Douglas  and  Shields,  March  4,  1850,  recom- 
mending the  extension  of  both  Hussey's  and  McCormick's  patents, 
saying: 

"  The  testimony  of  Mr.  McCormick  presented  to  the  Board  of 
Extension  clearly  proved  that  he  invented  and  put  in  operation  his 
machine  in  1831,  two  years  before  the  date  of  Hussey's  patent.  But 
my  opinion  is  that  justice  will  be  subserved  by  extending  the  patents 
of  both  parties." 

Neither,  however,  succeeded  in  obtaining  an  extension. 

Mr.  Justice  Nelson,  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  in  the 
suit  of  McCormick  vs.  Seymour  &  Morgan,  decided  in  1855,  among 
•other  points,  the  following: 

"  It  appears  from  the  evidence  in  the  case,  that  Hussey  and  Mc- 
Cormick turned  their  attention  to  the  construction  of  a  reaping  ma- 
•chine  very  nearly  at  the  same  period  —  McCormick  two  or  three  years 
^earlier." 

Hussey  was  a  witness  for  Seymour  &  Morgan  in  this  case. 

It  is  submitted  that  the  proof  on  the  point  of  priority  of  McCor- 

mick is  conclusive. 


II.  -WHAT  WAS  MC  CORMICK'S  MACHINE  OF  1831  AND  HUSSEY'S  OF  1833  T 

Let  us  see  which  one  contained  the  devices  that  time  has  demon- 
strated as  being  essential  to  the  successful  reaping  of  grain. 

(1)  Methods  of  Draft. — The  pictures  show  that  both  machines 
were  drawn  by  teams,  walking  at  the  side  of  the  grain.  McCormick's 
patent,  which  was  issued  June  21,  1834,  describes  both  a  pull  and  a 
push  machine,  and  the  drawing  of  the  patent,  which  is  herewith  repro- 


10 

duced,  Fig.  I,  shows  the  shafts  for  a  'horse  in  dotted  lines  at  the  front 
and  at  the  side  of  the  grain,  and  the  tongue  behind.     This  plan  of 


Fig.l 

PaienUd  June.Zi 


showing  and  describing  alternate  methods  of  construction  was  and 
still  is  very  common  in  patents.  McCormick's  idea  was,  that  a  ma- 
chine with  a  wider  cut  could  be  made  by  pushing  than  by  pulling  at 
the  side,  and,  to  effect  this,  the  patent  shows  the  pole  behind  attached' 
to  the  rear  of  the  platform  nearer  the  center  of  the  machine  than  the 
pole  or  shafts  could  be.  His  platform  being  just  the  width  of  the  fin- 
ger-bar, allows  the  raker  to  walk  at  the  rear  of  the  frame  of  the  ma- 
chine and  rake  the  gavel  to  the  side  out  of  the  way  of  the  team,  if  push- 
ing behind,  and  out  of  the  way  of  the  team  and  machine  in  the  next 
round  of  the  field,  whether  the  machine  be  drawn  or  pushed.  Hussey's- 
patent  shows  and  describes  only  a  pull  machine,  because  his  platform 
extended  the  full  width  of  his  finger-bar  and  frame  and,  therefore,  was 
not  adapted  to  raking  the  gavel  to  the  side,  as  was  McCormick's. 
HusseyVgavel  was  pushed  off  directly  behind  the  finger-bar,  and  his- 
machine  therefore  could  not  have  been  pushed,  as  the  team  would' 
trample  the  gavels,  nor  could  it  make  a  second  round  of  the  field,  even 
as  a  pull  machine,  until  the  gavel  of  the  first  round  had  been  removed 
from  the  path  of  the  team.  This  alternative  system  of  draft  described  in; 
the  patent  shows  that  McCormick  had  clear  ideas  in  1834  of  a  wider 
machine,  similar  to  the  modern  header,  which  must  be  pushed,  and 
of  a  narrower  machine  that  could  more  handily  be  drawn.  His  ma- 
chine was  always  drawn  except  on  one  occasion.  The  Protest,  how- 
ever, goes  to  unwarrantable  extremes  in  insisting  that  the  McCormick 


11 

patent  of  1834  shows  only  a  push  machine.  Such  a  mistake  could 
only  have  been  made  by  a  writer  ignorant  of  the  subject,  or  with  mal- 
ice, publishing  what  he  knew  to  be  untrue.  This  is  the  main  point  of 
the  whole  argument  of  the  Protest,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  quo- 
tation : 

"  Several  alleged  representations  of  the  1831  machine  have  been 
published,  showing  a  horse  in  thills,  drawing  it,  differing  little  from 
the  machine  of  the  McCormick  patent  of  1845.  If  these  representa- 
tions are  correct,  then  the  machine  of  the  McCormick  patent  of  1834 
shows,  practically,  an  abandonment  of  the  principles  of  the  alleged 
machine  of  1831,  for  in  the  patent  the  reaper  was  a  push  machine, 
somewhat  like  the  Bell  of  1826,  but  mounted  on  two  wheels  only — a 
master  wheel  and  a  grain  wheel.  The  tongue,  as  usual  with  these  ma- 
chines, extended  reanvardly,  but  had  nothing  to  prevent  its  end  from 
dropping  to  the  ground,  nor  had  it  anything  to  prevent  the  draft  of 
the  team  from  raising  it.  So  constructed,  it  was  not  as  controllable 
as  a  wheelbarrow,  for  the  load  in  the  latter  will  keep  the  handles  from 
being  turned  over  forward  by  the  pulling  action  of  the  arms  of  the 
operator.  In  order  to  prevent  the  machine  from  turning  over  forward, 
due  provision  was  made,  however,  for  he  says:  The  tongue  is  to  be 
supported  by  the  horses  by  means  of  a  pole,  passing  across  their  backs 
between  them,  and  resting  on  pad  saddles.  From  this,  a  pole  or  chain 
passes  back  to  the  tongue  below  and  suspends  it  to  the  desired  height. 
With  a  machine  of  the  header  type  in  mind,  it  now  seems  strange  that 
the  idea  of  supporting  its  push  tongue  upon  the  backs  of  the  horses 
ever  occurred,  and  it  seems  equally  strange  that  a  man  would  ever  sup- 
pose that  a  team  could  be  so  driven  as  to  steer  such  a  machine.  A 
horse  might  be  trained  to  run  a  wheelbarrow  as  a  feat,  but  no  one 
would  think  of  using  such  a  combination  for  any  practical  purpose." 

The  quotation  from  the  patent  that  is  contained  in  the  above  ex- 
tract, shows  that  the  writer  of  the  Protest  must  have  had  before  him 
a  copy  of  che  McCormick  patent  of  1834.  What  explanation,  then, 
can  be  offered  for  his  failure  to  state  that  the  patent  also  provided  for 
a  plan  of  pulling  the  machine?  Immediately  after  the  description  of 
the  plan  for  pushing  the  machine  the  patent  describes  how  it  can  be 
dr?wn.  It  says: 

"  One  horse  may  work  the  machine  from  this  side  by  substituting 
shafts  for  the  tongue.*' 

Again,  after  speaking  of  a  guide  in  front  of  the  main  wheel  to  de- 
flect grain  to  the  cutting  apparatus,  the  patent  states : 

"  This  triangle  is  to  be  moveable  on  its  screwr  also,  and  it  may  be 
removed  altogether  for  the  purpose  of  inserting  shafts,  so  that  the  ma- 


12 

chine  may  be  drawn  by  one  horse  in  this  manner.  The  two  headpieces 
are  to  be  lengthened,  as  also  the  curved  brace  projecting  towards  all  of 
them,  about  three  or  four  feet.  The  two  broad  pieces  will  be  connected 
at  their  ends  by  a  bar  for  the  singletree,  and,  rising  from  the  right 
hand  one  near  the  end',  an  upright  connects  it  with  the  curved  brace, 
and  by  the  side  of  this  upright  rises  another  secured  to  its  place  to  a 
height  sufficient  to  clear  the  reel.  From  this  top  a  brace  passes  across 
the  reel  to  the  opposite  post.  Below  the  inner  shaft  from  the  single- 
tree end,  is  secured  a  longer  bow  or  brace,  projecting  outward  some- 
what, and  continuing  along  the  direction  of  the  shaft  to  the  front  of  the 
horse,  where  it  passes  around  and  joins  to  the  other  shaft,  which  has 
been  left  purposely  longer.  The  object  of  this  bow  is  to  throw  the 
stalk  inward  towards  the  cutting  apparatus  instead  of  the  triangle  re- 
moved." 

This  language,  quoted  from  the  patent,  is  descriptive  of  a  method 
of  pulling  the  machine  as  shown  by  the  dotted  lines  of  the  drawing. 
If  the  eyesight  of  the  writer  of  the  Protest  is  so  poor  that  he  could 
not  see  the  shafts  in  the  drawing  and  the  language  in  the  specification 
describing  them,  is  it  not  fair  to  presume  that  his  mental  faculties  are 
so  impaired  as  to  render  valueless  anything  he  may  write?  It  is  a 
weak  cause  that  can  only  be  maintained  by  misleading  statements  and 
garbled  quotations.  Repeatedly  during  the  past  fifty  years  the  article 
from  the  Lexington  Union  of  September  28,  1833,  descriptive  of  Mc- 
Cormick's  reaper,  has  been  reproduced  and  widely  published.  This 
article  says: 

"  This  machine  [referring  to  the  McCormick  reaper  of  1833]  is  so 
constructed  as  to  leave  a  long  or  short  stu'bble,  to  operate  alike  on  tall 
or  short  grain.  It  is  drawn  by  one  horse  walking  by  the  side  of  the 
grain  in  shafts." 

The  paper  then  proceeds  to  give  a  full  description  of  the  machine. 
The  following  testimonial  in  relation  to  the  operation  of  the  McCor- 
mick reaper  in  the  harvest  of  1833  was  published  in  the  November, 
1833,  issue  of  the  Mechanics'  Magazine  and  Register  of  Inventions: 

"  I  certify  that  Mr.  C.  H.  McCormick's  reaping  machine  with  a 
horse  was  employed  by  me  in  the  late  harvest  and  though  I  did  not 
work  it  much  I  was  satisfied  with  its  work. 

"  [Signed]     JAMES  M'DOWELL." 

Mr.  McDowell  was  Governor  of  Virginia  in  1843. 
Mr.  William  S.  McCormick  testified  under  oath  in  1855,  in  the 
suit  of  McCormick  vs.  Manny,  as  follows: 


13 

"  Cross-Question  175. — How  was  the  horse  attached  to  that  ma- 
chine? 

"Answer. — I  do  not  recollect  whether  the  first  machine  was 
worked  by  one  or  two  horses;  but  whether  or  not,  I  well  remember 
that  the  horse  or  horses  were  always  attached  to  the  machine  substan- 
tially, as  now  done,  using  a  pair  of  shafts  or  pole  to  suit  one  or  two 
horses,  the  horse,  or  horses,  walking  outside  and  alongside  of  the  grain 
to  be  cut,  with  the  cutting  apparatus  on  the  left,  as  has  been  the  case 
ever  since.'7 

The  Protest  makes  long  extracts  from  the  communication  which 
Mr.  McCormick  filed  in  January  of  1848,  when  he  sought  to  have  his 
patent  of  1834  extended.  It  must  therefore  be  presumed  that  its  writer 
knew  and  suppressed  the  following  quotation  from  the  same  communi- 
cation : 

'*  The  machine  at  the  time  of  this  experiment  (1831)  contained 
all  the  essential  parts  that  were  embraced  in  the  patent  of  June  21, 
1834.  It  had  a  platform;  the  straight  sickle  with  the  vibrating  action 
by  a  crank;  the  fingers,  or  stationary  supports  to  the  cutting  at  the 
edge  of  the  blade,  and  projecting  forward  into  the  grain;  the  reel,  and 
the  general  arrangements  by  which  the  machine  was  balanced  upon 
two  wheels,  perhaps  nine-tenths  of  the  whole  weight  being  thrown 
upon  the  one  behind  the  draft,  thereby  attaching  the  horses  in  front 
and  at  one  side." 

Summarizing  on  the  methods  of  drafts : 

(a)  The  patents  show  that  both  machines  were  drawn  by  a  team 
walking  outside  the  standing  grain. 

(b)  McCormick's  patent  shows  an  alternative  device  so  that  the 
machine  could  be  pushed. 

(c)  The  plan  of  Hussey's  machine  is  such  that  it  could  not  be 
pushed. 

(d)  Accounts  of  McCormick's  machine,  published  at  Lexington, 
Va.,  before  any  knowledge  of  Hussey's  had  penetrated  that  remote 
neighborhood,  show  that  the  machine  was  drawn  when  at  work  in  the 
harvest  of  1833. 

(e)  Sworn  testimony  of  half  a  century  ago  and  sworn  statements 
in  1847,  °f  the  inventor  himself,  show  that  the  machine  was  always 
drawn  from  the  side. 

(f)  The  picture  of  McCormick's  machine,  herewith  published,  a 
reproduction  of  one  published  in  1834,.  shows  the  pull  method  of  draft. 


14 

It  is  submitted  that,  as  to  the  method  of  draft,  the  Protest  is  ut- 
terly misleading  and  the  conclusions  drawn  therefrom  must  fall. 

(2)  General  Plan  of  the  Machines. — McCormick's  machine  was 
mounted  on  two  wheels,  a  main  wheel  which  supported  the  greater 
part  of  the  weight  of  the  machine,  gave  motion  to  the  crank,  recipro- 
cated the  knife  and  revolved  the  reel,  and  a  grain  wheel  at  the  outer 
end  of  the  platform.  Hussey's  machine  had  three  wheels  at  the  stub- 
ble side,  all  of  which  rested  upon  the  ground.  The  tongue  was  piv- 
oted loosely  to  the  machine  like  the  usual  farm  wagon  tongue.  The 
platform  was  rigidly  projected  to  the  side,  as  shown  in  the  picture.  It 
is  plain,  therefore,  that  it  could  not  follow  the  inequalities  of  the 
ground,  and  that  any  obstruction  encountered  by  the  wheels  would 
throw  it  up  and  down,  leaving  a  washboard  stubble.  Hussey's  patent 
provided,  however,  that  if  a  wide  platform  was  to  be  used  the  machine 
should  have  four  wheels,  the  extra  one  at  the  outer  end  .of  the  platform. 
It  is  evident  that  such  a  construction  must  have  drawn  as  heavy  as  a 
stone-boat.  (See  Fig.  2,  taken  from  Ardrey's  "  American  Agricultural 
Implements.")  Simply  to  reciprocate  the  knife  and  draw  the  machine 
took  four  horses  on  the  trot. 


HUSSEY'S  REAPER,  1833. 

The  McCormick  construction  is  identical  with  that  found  in 
modern  reapers.  The  machine  had  a  stiff  pole,  as  have  the  reapers  of 
to-day,  and  balanced  over  the  wheels,  thus  handling  like  a  cart  and 
conforming  to  the  surface  of  the  ground.  The  weight  was  positioned 
largely  about  the  drive-wheel,  thus  giving  power  to  move  the  operative 
parts  of  the  machine.  McCormick  stated  this  construction  very  con- 
cisely in  the  following  language,  fifty  years  ago : 

"  The  general  arrangement  by  which  the  machine  was  balanced 
upon  two  wheels,  perhaps  nine-tenths  of  the  whole  weight  being- 
thrown  upon  the  one  behind  the  draft,  thereby  attaching  the  horses  in 
front  and  at  one  side  without  the  use  of  the  separate  two-wheeled  cart 
for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  running  of  the  machine  upon  its  two 


15 

nli eels,  to  accommodate  itself   to   the    irregularities  of  the  ground — 
which  construction  I  claim  (and  which  Hussey  adopted).'' 

In  explanation  of  this  last  statement  Hussey  remodeled  his  ma- 
chine, adopting  Mr.  McCormick's  plan,  in  1841.  In  a  long  advertise- 
ment in  the  American  Farmer  of  1842  Hussey  states: 

"  Last  year  an  entire  change  was  made  in  the  general  structure 
of  my  machine  (see  illustration,  Hussey's  reaping  machine,  1841, 
Fig.  3)-" 


Summarizing  on  this  point: 

(a)  The  McCormick  plan  is  the  one  in  universal  use  at  this  day. 

(b)  Hussey  abandoned  his  construction  and  adopted  that  of  Mc- 
Cormick. 

It  is  therefore  submitted  that  on  the  general  construction  of  the 
machine  McCormick's  plan  was  the  success  and  Hussey's  the  failure. 

(3)  The  Reel. — The  picture  of  the  McCormick  machine,  the  Pat- 
ent Office  drawings,  and  all  the  early  newspaper  accounts  speak  of 
McCormick's  reel.  In  the  description  of  McCormick's  machine  in  the 
Mechanics'  Magazine  in  1833  it  is  stated: 

"  There  is  a  reel,  as  it  is  termed,  which  is  about  6  or  7  feet  in  di- 
ameter, and  the  same  length  of  the  knife.  This  is  made  by  framing 
arms  in  each  end  of  the  shaft,  say  eight,  the  points  of  which  are  joined 
together  by  pieces  called  ribs,  parallel  to  the  shafts.  The  reel  is  re- 
volved as  the  machine  advances  by  a  band  from  the  main  wheel  to 
one  on  its  shaft,  the  object  of  which  is  to  draw  the  grain  back  to  the 
knife,  which  will  be  done  whether  straight  or  tangled,  upright  or  lean- 
ing, unless  below  an  angle  of  45  degrees,  and  to  throw  it  upon  the 
apron." 


16 

In  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  McCormick  to  the  editor  of  the  Me- 
chanics' Magazine,  in  May  of  1834,  is  the  following: 

"  The  revolving  reel,  as  I  conceive,  constitutes  a  very  important,, 
in  fact,  indispensable  part  of  my  machine." 

Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  this  reel  is  a  reel  that  will  do  the 
work.  In  all  the  reapers  built  by  McCormick  it  could  be  adjusted 
up  and  down  and  forward  and  back,  the  two  movements  of  to-day.  It 
has  been  said  that  Bell  had  a  reel,  but  the  descriptions  of  it  show  that 
the  arms  were  only  thirteen  inches  in  length.  Anyone  experienced 
in  harvesting  grain  knows  that  such  a  reel  would  have  no  effect  in 
raising  lodged  and  tangled  grain,  but,  on  the  contrary,  would  roll  it 
ahead  of  the  knife  and  be  worse  than  useless.  Hussey  had  no  reel, 
and  never  had. 

The  Protest  says : 

"  In  its  perfected  form  (referring  to  Hussey's  reaper)  it  may  be 
considered  as  existing  in  the  manual-delivery  reapers  largely  used  in 
Europe  and  extensively  manufactured  by  the  McCormick  Harvesting 
Machine  Company,  the  Deering  Harvester  Company  and  others,  as 
shown  by  their  annual  circulars." 

All  Europe  did  not  sell  1,000  of  these  manual-delivery  reapers  in 
1896-  The  cut  herewith  (Fig.  4)  will  show  the  so-called  "manual- 


delivery  reaper  "  that  is  now  being  made  and  sold.  It  is  an  attachment 
for  a  mower,  a  makeshift  for  using  the  mower  on  the  small  European 
farms  (which  average  about  five  acres  each),  to  reap  a  small  patch 


17 

of  grain  by  the  use  of  an  extra  man.  Notice  the  position  of  the  man 
with  the  rake.  He  is  seated  well  fonvard  so  that  he  can  with  his  rake 
do  the  work  of  the  reel.  The  platform  upon  which  the  grain  falls  is 
pivoted  and  controlled  by  the  foot  of  the  raker.  When  a  bundle  has 
been  reeled  on  to  the  platform  by  the  man  with  his  rake  the  rear  end 
of  the  platform  is  dropped  into  the  stubble  and  the  bundle  slips  off. 
Xow,  what  about  Hussey?  The  cut  (Fig.  2)  shows  the  raker  on  the 
rear  end  of  the  machine  pushing  the  bundle  from  the  machine  to  the 
ground.  His  position  is  such  that  he  could  not  both  act  as  a  reeler 
and  a  raker.  The  platform  is  not  hinged,  as  in  the  present  form  of 
reaping  attachments,  and  as  he  could  only  push  the  bundle  from  the 
machine,  the  horses  are  in  a  trot  in  order  to  strike  the  stalks  of  grain 
with  sufficient  momentum  so  that  the  heads  will  fall  to  the  rear,  thus 
in  an  impractical  way  trying  to  reap  without  a  reel. 
Summarizing  on  the  question  of  the  reel: 

(a)  McCormick's  reaper  from  the  beginning  had  a  serviceable,- ad- 
justable reel  of  practically  the  same  diameter,  and  for  the  same  purpose, 
as  the  reels  in  use  to-day. 

(b)  Hussey's  machine  had  no  reel,  and  never  had. 

(c)  Because  a  few  reaping  attachments  for  mowers  are  now  sold 
to  the  small  peasant  farmers  of  Europe  is  a  weak  excuse  for  saying 
that  Hussey's  reaper  exists  to-day. 

(d)  The  reaping  attachment  of  to-day  has  a  tilting  platform,  a 
divider,  and  the  raker  is  positioned  to  do  the  work  of  reeling.    Hus- 
sey's had  no  tilting  platform,  no  divider,  and  the  raker  could  not  both 
reel  and  push  the  bundle  from  the  rigid  platform. 

It  is  submitted  that  the  reel  is  an  essential  part  of  a  practical  reap- 
ing machine.  Hussey  did  not  have  it,  and  therefore  his  machine  was 
a  failure. 

(4)  The  Divider. — In  McCormick's  patent  of  June  21,  1854,  is  the 
following  description  of  the  first  divider  ever  used  on  a  reaper  and  also 
the  first  to  be  used  in  combination  with  a  reel: 

"  On  the  opposite  side  of  the  machine  is  another  reel  post  sup- 
ported by  a  brace  on  each  side  .  .  on  the  outside  of  which  piece 
.  .  may  be  secured  a  bow  in  order  to  more  effectually  divide  the 
grain.  .  .  .  This  reel,  by  the  motion  given  by  the  strap,  as  the 
horses  advance,  bears  the  stalks  as  they  are  projected  inward 'by  each 


18 

end  of  the  termination  of  the  platform  upon  the  cutter,  and  when 
separated  lands  them  on  -the  platform." 

In  the  claim  of  the  patent  is  the  following : 

"  And  also  the  method  of  dividing  and  keeping  separate  the  grain 
to  be  cut  from  that  to  be  left  standing." 

In  the  newspaper  article  published  in  the  Lexington  Union  in 
September  of  1833  is  the  following  description  of  the  divider: 

"  Alongside  the  apron,  by  the  point  of  the  knife,  and  extending 
some  distance  before  the  knife,  is  raised  a  partition  of  cloth  for  the 
purpose  of  dividing  and  keeping  separate  the  cut  grain  from  that 
which  is  left  standing.'' 

The  pictures  of  Hussey's  machine  will  show  that  it  had  no  divider. 
Later,  after  Hussey  had  abandoned  his  two-wheeled  cart  and  adopted 
McCormick's  construction  of  mounting  the  machine  upon  a  main  and 
grain-wheel  (Fig.  3),  he  stood  a  narrow  board  edgewise  at  the  end  of 
his  platform  to  protect  the  top  of  the  grain-wheel  from  becoming 
wound  with  grain  and  vines,  but  at  no  time  during  the  life  of  the  Mc- 
Cormick  patent  of  1834  did  he  have  upon  his  machine  a  divider  pro- 
jecting in  front  of  the  cutting  apparatus  to  separate  the  grain  to  be 
cut  from  that  to  be  left  standing.  Practical  men  know  that  without  a 
reel  or  a  divider  Hussey's  machine  could  not  be  a  successful  reaper. 

The  combined  action  of  McCormick's  divider  and  reel  is  essential 
in  reaping  machines.  The  divider  projected  ahead  of  the  finger-bar 
and  separated  the  swath  to  be  cut  from  the  grain  to  be  left  standing. 
It  threw  the  part  to  be  cut  inwardly  so  it  could  be  acted  upon  by  the 
reel,  and  thus  be  separated  before  it  was  severed,  and  while  its  roots 
held  it  to  the  ground.  Judge  Nelson  stated  in  the  case  of  McCormick 
vs.  Seymour  &  Morgan : 

"  That  the  plaintiff  was  seeking  to  obtain  a  divider,  that  would 
not  only  divide  the  standing  grain,  but  one  that  could  be  successfully 
used  for  dividing  grain,  whether  standing,  or  tangled,  or  lodged,  or 
broken.  ...  It  seems  from  the  testimony  of  all  the  witnesses 
that  there  is  no  great  difficulty  in  dividing  the  grain  in  the  operation 
of  reaping  when  it  stands  erect.  They  say  that  the  reel  is  of  no  great 
utility  where  the  grain  is  not  tangled  or  leaning;  that  the  operation 
of  Hussey's  machine  without  the  reel  is  as  successful  as  that  of  any  other 
in  cutting  standing  grain;  that  the  difficulty  commences  in  tangled 
grain;  and  that,  as  great  portions  of  the  grain  during  the  harvest, 
portions,  perhaps,  of  every  field,  are  in  that  condition,  a  machine  would 


19 

be  comparatively  useless  that  could  operate  only  on  standing  grain, 
leaving  that  which  is  tangled  to  be  cut  by  some  other  instrument." 

Referring  again  to  the  reaping  attachment  (Fig.  4),  attention  is 
called  to  the  divider  which  projects  in  front  of  the  finger-bar  about 
three  feet,  and  which  has  welded  to  its  point  two  solid  iron  rods  that 
extend  rearwardly  and  upwardly  and  diverge  at  their  ends,  in  order 
to  penetrate  the  grain  and  separate  the  swath  to  be  cut  from  the  grain 
to  be  left  standing.  The  raker,  who,  as  has  been  heretofore  explained, 
uses  his  rake  largely  as  a  reel,  assists  the  divider  in  separating  the 
grain  and  reeling  it  upon  the  paltform. 

The  Protest  says :  "  In  its  (Hussey's)  perfected  form  it  exists  in 
the  manual-delivery  reaper."  As  it  is  plain  that  it  is  not  the  machine 
which  Hussey  invented  and  built,  the  comparison  is  fatal  as  a  support 
to  the  claim  that  Hussey's  was  a  practical  reaping  machine,  for  in 
order  to  make  the  "  manual-delivery  machine  "  operative  it  must  have 
AlcCormick's  divider  and  place  a  man  with  a  rake  to  do  the  work  of 
McCormick's  reel. 

Summarizing  on  this  point: 

(a)  McCormick's  machine  had  a  divider  from  the  beginning. 

(b)  It  had  a  divider  in  combination  with  a  reel  from  the  begin- 
ning. 

(c)  Hussey's  reaper  did  not  contain  a  divider,  during  the  life  of 
McCormick's  first  patent. 

(d)  The  reaping  attachment  for  mowers  which  has  been  called 
"the  Perfected  Hussey   Machine,"   clearly  shows   Hussey's  reaper  to 
have  been  a  failure,  as  the  "  manual  delivery  "  has  a  divider,  and  posi- 
tions a  man  upon  the  machine  with  a  rake  to  do  by  hand  the  reeling 
and  dividing  which  the  McCormick  machine  always  did  automatically. 

It  is  submitted  that,  under  this  head  alone,  Hussey's  machine 
must  be  deemed  a  failure. 

(5)  The  Platform — McCormick's  machine  from  the  beginning 
had  a  platform  of  the  same  width  as  the  finger-bar.  The  raker  was 
thus  enabled  to  walk  behind  or  ride  on  the  frame  of  the  machine  and 
draw  the  accumulated  gavel  from  the  platform  upon  the  ground  at  the 
side  of  the  machine,  and  out  of  the  way  in  making  the  next  round  of 
the  field. 


20 

Hussey's  machine  had  a  platform  extending  the  full  width  of  the 
cutting  apparatus  and  frame.  The  wide  third  wheel  was  placed  be- 
hind this  platform,  and  the  raker,  who  sometimes  sat  upon  the  plat- 
form, pushed  the  accumulated  gavel  upon  the  ground  immediately  be- 
hind the  platform,  and  in  the  path  of  the  team  and  machine  in  making 
the  next  round  of  the  field.  This  was  the  plan  of  the  Hussey  machine 
so  long  as  built.  That  it  was  unhandy  and  a  serious  disadvantage 
is  fully  proven  by  the  following  quotation  from  the  Genesee  Farmer, 
vol.  1 6,  p.  308: 

"  Hussey's  went  on,  and  the  gatherers  had  to>  jump  and  run  to 
keep  pace  with  the  fleet  horses.  .  .  .  McCormickys  worked  very 
easy  and  cut  as  close  and  regular  as  could  be  desired.  There  was  not 
a  straw  to  be  seen  on  the  whole  track  over  which  it  went ;  the  sheaves 
were  all  beautifully  arranged  in  line,  with  their  butt  ends  nicely  to- 
gether, as  nicely  as  if  done  by  hand',  with  care.  It  cut  so  perfectly 
straight  that  it  took  the  last  row  at  one  cut  and  made  a  clean  sweep, 
not  leaving  a  single  straw  to  tell  the  tale. 

"  While  all  that  was  going  on,  Hussey  worked  up  and  down  with 
a  legion  of  busy  gatherers  following  the  reaper  at  a  quick  step,  hav- 
ing a  large  quantity  yet  to  cut.  The  poor  horses,  although  young  and 
powerful,  driven  at  a  great  speed,  were  completely  exhausted.  The 
machine  works  heavily,  it  requires  too  much  power  to  drive  its  pon- 
derous knife.  Having  no  side  delivery,  a  number  of  men  must  in> 
mediately  remove  the  grain  in  order  to  clear  the  track  for  the  next 
cut;  the  men  not  having  time  to  make  neat  work  left  the  field  strewed 
with  grain.  In  countries  where  manual  labor  is  scarce,  which  is  the 
case  everywhere  during  harvest,  this  machine  could  not  be  employed  at 
all  except  with  a  great  loss  of  grain,  being  tramped  out  by  the  horses." 

It  can  hardly  be  said  that  Hussey's  machine  was  not  a  practical 
reaper,  solely  because  the  gavel  could  not  be  delivered  at  one  side. 
But  nevertheless  the  McCormick  side-delivery  plan  has  driven  every 
rear-delivery  machine  out  of  existence  in  America. 

Summarizing  on  this  point : 

(a)  McCormick's    machine   was    constructed   so   that   the   raker 
could  deliver  the  grain  at  one  side  out  of  the  way  of  the  team  in  the 
next  round. 

(b)  Hussey's  machine  was  constructed  so  that  the  bundle  had  to 
be  raked  off  directly  in  its  path  on  the  next  round. 

(c)  Because  of  the  absence  of  the  reel  and  divider  to  get  the 
grain  properly  on  the  platform,  it  was  impossible  for  Hussey's  raker 


21 

to  draw  the  gavels  to  one  side,  even  though  in  1841  he  adopted  the 
McCormick  plan  of  mounting  his  machine  upon  two  wheels. 

It  is  submitted,  on  this  point,  that  McCormick's  machine  had 
greatly  the  advantage  of  Hussey's. 

(6)  The  Cutting  Apparatus. — Whoever  compiled  the  Protest  for 
the  rival  manufacturers  was  adroit  in  trying  to  narrow  the  successful 
elements  of  a  reaping  machine  down  to  the  cutting  apparatus.  Es- 
pecially is  this  so  when  they  select  Hussey  as  their  hero,  whose  only 
invention  was  an  improvement  in  the  cutting  apparatus. 

The  Protest  says : 

"  Twenty  or  30  reaping  machines  had  been  invented  before  Hus- 
sey's,  but  all  were  failures  because  they  would  not  cut  well.  When 
Hussey  invented  his  successful  cutting  apparatus,  he  did  what  Howe 
did  for  the  sewing  machine." 

It  is  not  my  wish  to  detract  from  the  honor  justly  due  the  many 
who  made  improvements  on  the  reaping  machine;  it  is,however,neces- 
sary  in  this  case  to  show  what  the  cutting  apparatus  was  which  Hussey 
invented  and  used  in  1833,  and  what  was  McCormick's  of  1831. 

To  show  that  writers  do  not  agree  that  reapers  "  were  failures 
because  they  could  not  cut  well,"  I  quote  from  the  Genesee  Farmer, 
vol.  iv,  1834,  p.  154: 

"  Mr.  Boyer  made  an  ingenious  apparatus  to  imitate  the  motion 
and  do  the  work  of  the  bowed  scythe.  Even  though  it  cut  well,  yet 
it  made  wretched  waste." 

There  could  be  many  devices  for  merely  severing  the  stalks  were 
is  not  necessary  to  handle  the  grain  gently  and  preserve  it.  There 
is  more  required  of  a  reaper  than  to  merely  cut  the  stalks.  Grain  is 
reaped  solely  that  it  may  be  saved,  and  the  divider,  reel  and  side- 
delivery  platform  are  more  essential  in  the  saving  than  would  be  a 
cutting  device  which  might  have  the  many  niceties  of  construction 
found  in  the  500  or  more  patented  improvements  made  since  1831. 
Hussey's  1833  cutting  apparatus  is  claimed  as  follows: 

(a)  "The  straight  horizontal  saw  with  teeth   sharp   on  their  two 
sides  for  cutting  grain." 

(b)  "The  guards  forming  double  bearings  above  and  below  the 
saw  whereby  the  cutting  is  made  sure,  whether  with  sharp  or  dull  edge, 
the  guards  at  the  same  time  protecting  the  saw  from  rocks  or  sticks  or 
other  large  substances  it  may  meet  with." 


22 

(c)  "The  peculiar  construction  that  the  saw  teeth  may  run  free, 
whereby  the  necessary  pressure  and  consequent  friction  of  two  cor- 
responding edges  cutting  together  as  a  pair  of  scissors,  are  entirely 
avoided." 


The  drawing,  Fig.  5,  shows  this  cutting  apparatus.  Attention  is 
called  to  the  fact  that  the  "  saw  teeth  are  sharp  on  their  two  sides." 
The  saw  teeth  in  use  to-day  are  sharp  only  on  one  side.  Leaving  the 
teeth  sharp  on  two  sides  makes  a  bevel  on  both  sides  of  the  knife  sec- 
tion. This  is  what  is  meant  in  the  third  claim  just  quoted. 

Every  farmer's  boy  knows  that  a  successful  cutting  device  of  to- 
day is  one  that  has  "  the  friction  of  two  corresponding  edges  cutting 
together  as  a  pair  of  scissors,"  the  very  element  against  which  Hussey 
so  carefully  provided. 

The  construction  of  this  cutting  apparatus  of  Hussey's  must  have 
been  known  to  the  compilers  of  the  Protest.  If  they  did  not  know 
of  this  fatal  defect  in  Hussey's  cutting  apparatus  of  1833,  they  should 
not  be  writing  so  positively  on  the  subject;  if  they  did  know,  then  they 
are  deceiving  their  readers. 

That  there  may  be  no  question  of  the  drawing  above  (Fig.  5)  cor- 
rectly representing  the  Hussey  cutting  apparatus  of  1833,  I  quote 
from  reissue  letters  patent  No.  449,  granted  April  14,  1857,  to  Obed 
Hussey: 

"  In  my  original  invention,  viz. :  the  reaping  machine  patented  by 
me  in  1833,  the  upper  part  of  the  guards  was  fastened  to  the  lower 
part  both  before  and  behind  the  blades,  as  represented  at  C  C,  and 
the  grass,  straw,  etc.,  which  was  not  perfectly  cut  was  forced  in  by 


23 

the  shearing  motion  of  the  blades  and  worked  back  between  the  blades, 
and  the  grass,  materially  obstructing  the  free  movement  of  the  blades, 
in  wet  weather  frequently  caused  what  the  farmers  called  choking. 
...  In  my  original  sickle,  patented  in  1833,  the  blades  are  ground 
ic it h  a  bevel  on  both  <iies  of  the  edge;  the  purpose  of  this  is  that,  by 
means  of  the  shoulder  of  the  bevel,  the  sharp  edge  is  prevented  from 
coming  in  contact  with  the  finger,  and  when  sprung  or  bent  cutting 
into  the  finger.  ...  By  reason  of  this  tendency  of  the  scalloped 
sickle  to  force  the  stalks  across  and  thus  entangle  them  upon  the  fin- 
gers, all  the  modes  heretofore  devised  of  working  this  sickle  were 
apparently  ineffective" 

Hussey  signed  the  above,  under  oath,  in  1857,  and  the  Patent 
Office  granted  him  a  patent  for  an  improvement  on  these  statements. 

Further  proof  seems  unnecessary  to  show  the  failure  of  Hussey's 
machine  of  1833,  after  his  own  sworn  statement  in  1857.  Neverthe- 
less there  are  many  facts,  aside  from  his  own  statement,  which  would, 
of  themselves,  effectually  prove  its  failure. 

In  a  brief  filed  in  the  Patent  Office  in  1848  Hussey  disclaimed 
everything  in  his  first  patent  but  his  cutter,  and  described  that  as 

"'  Composed  of  a  row  of  blades  of  lancet  point  shape,  arranged 
on  a  rod,  side  by  side.  /  do  not  claim  to  be  the  inventor  of  such  blades 
but  I  claim  them  in  combination  with  and  vibrating  through  and  into 
double  fingers." 

A  discussion,  therefore,  of  the  Hussey  cutting  apparatus  is  a  dis- 
cussion of  his  reaper. 

Mr.  W.  X.  Whiteley  is  one  of  the  very  few  who  now  have  the  cour- 
age to  sign  their  communications,  and  who  states,  in  a  letter  written 
January  8,  1897,  and  published  with  the  Protest: 

"  All  reaping  machines  of  the  present  day  embody  substantially 
all  of  the  vital  principles  given  by  Obed  Hussey  in  1833  and  at  different 
periods  thereafter-" 

Possibly  Mr.  Whiteley 's  memory  is  better  now  than  it  was  in  1861, 
when  he  had  less  interest  in  denying  the  invention  of  the  reaper  by 
McCormick.  All  disinterested  persons,  however,  will  think  that  his 
mind  was  as  vigorous  and  his  judgment  on  the  question  of  invention  as 
good  in  1861  as  it  is  to-day.  Hon.  Samuel  T.  Shugert,  Acting  Com- 
missioner of  Patents,  says  in  his  opinion,  given  March  i,  1861,  in  the 
application  of  Eunice  B.  Hussey  fo  r  an  extension  .of  Obed  Hussey's 
patent: 

"  The  counsel  of  Wm.  X.  Whiteley,  the  opponent  of  these  exten- 


24 

sions,  have  urged  with  great  pertinacity  that  the  inventions  are  not 
novel." 

Shugert's  decision  was  rendered  March  i,  1861,  andJLee  &  Fisher 
were  the  attorneys  for  Whiteley. 

On  April  n,  1861,  the  following  letter  was  written  to  St.  Louis 
by  Mr.  Geo.  M.  Lee,  of  the  firm  of  Lee  &  Fisher,  Whiteley's  attorneys : 

"Cincinnati,  April  n,  1861. 
"  Messrs.  Kingsland  &  Ferguson: 

"  Gents — We  write  you  at  the  instance  of  various  of  the  mower 
and  reaper  manufacturers  who  oppose  the  extension  of  McCormick's 
patents.  .  .  .  We  have  taken  much  testimony  in  the  case  and  ob- 
tained a  resolution  of  Congress  giving  us  more  time,  until  May  n,  to 
take  further  evidence.  Now  this  litigation  is  for  the  joint  interest  of 
you  all,  and  we  have  supposed  all  would  sustain  it.  ...  If  Mc- 
Cormick's patents  are  extended  he  will  monopolize  the  entire  business 
and  you  will  all  either  have  to  pay  him  $15  per  machine  or  quit;  for 
although  he  was  beaten  in  the  Hussey  case  he  has  reissued  his  patents, 
as  you  are  aware,  so  as  to  cover  every  machine  of  any  real  value.  All 
he  waits  for  now  is  an  extension  and  he  will  begin  a  war  on  you  all, 
and  it  will  be  found  almost  impossible  to  beat  him  in  court  on  these 
reissues.  They  are  prepared  with  great  care,  but  he  can  be  beaten  in 
the  Patent  Office,  and  he  must  be  beaten  now  or  never.  .  .  . 
Please,  therefore,  take  hold  and  help  us  beat  the  common  enemy. 
.  .  .  Subscriptions  have  ranged  from  $100  to  $1,000.  Respect- 
fully, LEE  &  FISHER,  by  G.  M.  Lee. 

"  P.  S. — Send  in  also  to  the  Patent  Office  some  hundreds  of  re- 
monstrances, if  you  can,  like  this.    There  is  no  postage  to  pay. 
"  '  To  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  of  U.  S.: 

"  '  We  oppose  the  extension  of  C.  H.  McCormick's  patents.  He 
has  made  money  enough  off  the  farmers.  [Signed  by  hundreds.] ' ' 

Mr.  Whiteley  has  always  opposed  McCormick,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  he  could  in  1861  have  thought  "  that  McCormick's  patents  will 
monopolize  the  entire  business  and  cover  every  machine  of  any  real 
value,"  and  to-day  state :  "  The  reaper  of  the  present  day  does  not 
disclose  any  principles  contained  in  the  early  efforts  of  C.  H.  McCor- 
mick; but  that  cannot  be  said  of  Hussey."  In  1861,  when  the  fight  was 
on  and  reaper  men  knew  about  the  matter,  Whiteley's  interpretation 
of  the  situation  was  that  Hussey's  claims  "  were  not  novel "  and  Mc- 
Cormick's "  covered  every  machine  of  any  real  value."  Mr.  Whiteley 
of  1897  better  square  himself  with  Mr.  Whiteley  of  1861  before  his 
opinions  will  be  entitled'  to  any  weight  on  historical  matters.  Let  it  be 
remembered,  however,  that  Mr.  Whiteley  had  sufficient  ability  in  me- 


25 

chanical  lines  not  to  adopt  any  such  crazy  plan  of  a  cutting  apparatus 
as  that  of  Hussey's.  E.  N.  Dickerson,  who  was  McCormick's  counsel 
in  the  McCormick-Manny  case,  in  referring  to  the  Hussey  cutting  ap- 
paratus which  had  been  described  by  George  Harding,  of  Manny's 
counsel,  and  frequently  Hussey's  attorney,  characterized  the  Hussey 
cutting  apparatus  as  follows: 

"  My  friend  (Harding)  informs  us  that  the  cutting  apparatus  of 
Hussey's  machine  is  similar  to  two  bricks  and  a  dull  ax,  by  the  use 
of  which  you  may  certainly  cut  a  stick  in  two  if  you  lay  it  across  be- 
tween the  bricks  and  strike  it  with  the  ax.  If  you  have  power  enough 
the  stick  must  yield,  but  that  is  a  most  stupid  way  of  cutting  grain,  and 
McCormick  was  never  guilty  of  anything  half  so  stupid." 

Again  referring  to  the  drawing  (Fig.  5)  of  Hussey's  cutting  ap- 
paratus, notice  that  the  angle  between  the  knife  and  the  guard  is  a  very 
acute  one — eighteen  degrees-  The  bevel  on  both  sides  of  the  knife  and 
the  length  of  the  knife,  over  four  inches  with  its  slight  angle,  makes  the 
description  of  Dickerson,  of  "  two  bricks  and  a  dull  ax,"  very  appro- 
priate. In  the  cut  of  the  Hussey  machine  taken  from  Ardrey's 
"American  Agricultural  Implements"  (Fig.  2),  there  are  four  horses 
hitched  to  the  machine  and  they  are  in  a  brisk  trot.  The  only  work 
this  machine  did  was  to  drive  the  k  nife,  so  it  is  evident  that  some- 
thing must  have  been  the  matter  w  ith  his  cutting  apparatus. 

Hussey  gave  his  entire  time  for  nearly  thirty  years  trying  to  in- 
troduce his  reaping  machine,  and  of  course  found  some  favorable  con- 
ditions in  which  it  operated;  still  all  accounts  of  the  machine  have  ex- 
pressions that  show  its  extreme  draft,  and  the  fact  that  it  could  be 
operated  only  when  the  grain  was  dry  and  free  from  grass  and  weeds. 

In  William  C.  Dwight's  account  of  the  machine  published  in  the 
Genesee  Farmer,  in  Vol.  IV,  of  1834,  he  says: 

"  A  change  of  horses  is  necessary,  as  the  gait  of  the  horses  is  too 
rapid  to  admit  of  a  heavy  draft.  The  horses  go  at  the  rate  of  four  or 
five  miles  an  hour,  and  when  the  growth  of  straw  is  not  too  heavy, 
a  fair  trot  of  the  team  it  not  too  much." 

In  the  report  of  the  Board  of  T  rustees  of  the  Maryland  Agricul- 
tural Society  for  1836,  they  say  that  three  mules  were  used  upon  the 
machine  and  that  "they  moved  with  equal  facility  in  a  walk  or  in  a 
trot." 

In  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Philadelphia  Agricultural 


26 

Society,  1839,  it  was  stated,  "A  trot  is  sometimes  necessary  where  the 
grain  is  much  lodged,  or  a  strong  wind  drives  in  the  direction  of  the 
machine." 

Hussey,  writing  from  Baltimore  on  November  15,  1839,  states: 

"  With  the  speed  of  an  ordinary  brisk  walk  the  cutting  is  sure. 
.  .  So  sure  is  the  cutting  at  all  times  that  the  sharp  edge  is  by  no- 
means  necessary,  for  no  sharpening  is  required  from  beginning  to  end 
of  harvest,  and  no  difference  in  the  excellency  of  its  work  can  be  dis- 
covered between  sharp  and  dull  cutters.  .  .  .  The  machine  will 
also  do  excellent  work  in  almost  any  kind  of  grain  in  a  quick  trot,  but 
such  a  speed  should  be  avoided  except  when  absolutely  necessary." 

In  1840  Hussey  sent  several  reaping  machines  to  parties  near 
Richmond,  but  they  did  not  give  satisfaction,  and  Edward  Ruffin,  the 
famous  agriculturist  of  Virginia,  editor  of  the  Farmers'  Register,  de- 
clined to  recommend  the  machine,  because  "  he  had  not  seen  a  trial 
of  it,  and  those  who  have  tried  it  differ  as  to  its  merits  and  economy.* 

This  statement  of  Mr.  Ruffin  called  forth  a  letter  from  Queen 
Anne  County,  Maryland,  under  date  of  February  18,  1841,  and  one 
from  Mr.  Hussey  himself,  under  date  of  April  4.  The  one  from  Queen 
Anne  County  declares  that: 

"  I  have  not  as  yet,  from  my  own  experience,  been  able  to  decide 
on  the  value  of  the  reaper.  ...  It  broke  early  in  the  harvest.  .  .  . 
The  knives  could  not  be  set  to  cut  higher  than  nine  inches.  It  cut 
more  straw  than  was  useful,  and  also  grass  among  the  wheat,  this  im- 
posed unnecessary  labor  on  the  horses  and  a  heavy  strain  on  the  ma- 
chine." 

Hussey,  discussing  the  cause  of  the  failure  in  Virginia,  states,  in  his 
letter  to  the  Farmers'  Register: 

"  It  is  admitted  that  it  may  not  do  everything  that  is  expected  of 
it,  when  proper  management  is  not  used;  for  instance,  when  the  wheat 
is  rank  and  mixed  with  grass,  the  cutter  should  be  raised  to  the  high- 
est point." 

Hussey  then  made  a  proposition  to  Ruffin  to  send  two  machines 
to  Virginia,  and  this  proposition  was  accepted,  and  the  machines  were 
sent  to  the  estates  of  Wm.  B.  Harrison,  Esq.,  Upper  Brandon,  and  R. 
B.  Bolden,  Sandy  Point,  James  River,  both  of  whom  made  reports  to 
the  Farmers'  Register.  Harrison  declined  to  recommend  the  machine 
as  time  saving,  and  went  on  to  say,  among  other  things : 

"  The  reaper  cannot  be  started  as  long  as  there  is  any  dew  on  the 


2? 

wheat  in  the  morning,  nor  can  it  op  erate  after  much  has  fallen  in  the 
evening.  ...  It  would  add  greatly  to  the  value  of  this  machine 
if  the  ingenious  inventor,  Mr.  Hussey,  can  devise  some  way  to  make 
them  cut  damp  straw,  so  they  could  be  kept  at  work  all  day." 

Bolden  declared  that: 

'"'  With  three  mules  and  a  man  to  drive  and  one  on  the  machine 
to  rake  the  wheat  from  the  platform  upon  which,  as  it  is  cut,  it  falls, 
we  estimated  that  rather  more  than  one  acre  per  hour  was  reaped.  The 
machine  does  not  cut  well  early  in  the  morning,  when  the  wheat  is 
moist." 

In  1842,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Prince  George  County  (Va.)  Agri- 
cultural Society,  July  4,  a  report  was  submitted  by  the  Committee  to 
the  effect  that: 

"  Hussey's  wheat  reaping  machine  has  been  introduced  on  one 
of  the  Brandon  estates,  but  owing  principally  to  its  inability  to  work 
when  the  wheat  is  damp  from  dew,  no  material  advantage  has  yet  re- 
sulted from  it." 

In  March  of  1843  Hussey,  who  had  read  the  glowing  accounts  of 
the  work  of  McCormick's  machines  in  Virginia,  wrote  to  the  editor 
of  the  Southern  Planter  as  follows : 

"  I  saw  in  your  last  Planter  an  account  of  another  reaper  in  your 
State,  which  is  attracting  some  attention,  it  shall  be  my  endeavor  to 
meet  that  machine  in  the  field  in  th  e  next  harvest.  I  think  it  but  jus- 
tice to  give  this  public  notice,  that  parties  concerned  may  not  be 
taken  unawares,  but  have  the  opportunity  to  prepare  themselves  for 
such  a  contest." 

McCormick  accepted  this  challenge  through  the  columns  of  the 
Richmond  Enquirer,  and  suggested  that  Hussey  meet  him  on  the 
farm  of  Mr.  Ambrose  Hutchinson,  where  a  machine  that  he  had  sold 
to  the  President  of  the  Virginia  State  Agricultural  Society,  Rev.  J. 
H.  Turner,  would  be  in  operation.  In  accepting  Hussey's  challenge, 
he  said: 

"  I  will  willingly  submit  the  pretensions  of  both  machines  to  the 
arbitrament  of  a  disinterested  tribunal  of  experienced  farmers.  .  .  . 
I  shall  endeavor  to  show  in  the  first  place  that  my  machine  will  cut 
damp  or  wet  wheat,  and,  in  order  to  do  so,  propose  to  commence 
cutting  at  sunrise.  I  shall  further  endeavor  to  show  that  it  will  cut 
15  acres  a  day,  without  pushing  or  driving,  and  with  a  very  light  two- 
horse  draft." 

In  place  of  going  to  the  farm  of  Mr.  Hutchinson,  Hussey  brought 


28 

"his  reaper  to  the  farm  of  a  Mr.  Wight,  on  the  James  River,  on  t  the 
day  on  which  McCormick  was  to  start  in  operation  a  machine  pur- 
chased of  him  by  Wight.  There  is  a  statement  of  this  trial  in  the 
Richmond  Enquirer,  from  which  we  learn  that  the  McCormick  ma- 
chine operated  well  in  the  wet  wheat  after  a  heavy  rain,  while  Hussey's 
clogged  and  stopped,  and  in  a  length  of  twenty  paces  had  to  be 
turned  out  of  the  crop  twice  and  started  in  again  by  his  four  mules 
at  a  hard  trot,  after  which  he  admitted  that  his  machine  would  not 
cut  wet  or  damp  grain. 

Hussey,  not  being  satisfied,  on  the  3Oth  of  June  took  his 
reaper  to  Hutchinson's.  McCormick  was  there  with  his  machine,  and 
began  cutting  at  5:15  a.  m.,  as  promised.  Hussey,  however,  did  not 
get  to  the  field  until  after  10  o'clock.  A  committee  was  appointed  by 
the  spectators,  and  the  machines  tried  together  in  different  locations. 
The  decision  was  rendered  in  favor  of  the  McCormick  machine  be- 
cause "it  cut  damp  wheat,  was  lighter  draft,  had  side  delivery,  scat- 
tering less  grain,  and  better  quality  of  cut.77  Hussey,  however,  when 
defeated,  wanted  to  try  again,  and  the  machines  met  on  the  farm  of  a 
Mr.  Roane.  At  this  trial  the  McCormick  machine  cut  fourteen  acres 
in  one  day,  notwithstanding  a  loss  of  some  time  in  the  morning  and 
again  after  dinner. 

This  was  the  last  seen  of  Mr.  Hussey  in  Virginia.  He  was  fairly 
beaten,  but  never  ceased  to  bewail  his  failure.  At  the  end  of  the  year 
1844  he  wrote  the  editor  of  The  Cultivator: 

"  It  is  now  10  years  since  my  invention  of  the  reaper.  I  have  been 
constantly  engaged  since  that  time  in  its  improvement.  ...  It 
cannot  appear  strange  if  some  of  these  changes  may  have  been  for  the 
worse  and  thereby  endangered  its  good  name.  .  .  .  My  large 
machine  requires  four  horses." 

It  has  been  stated  that  Hussey  was  not  "strong  enough"  to  push 
his  machine.  A  careful  examination  of  his  various  attempts  to  intro- 
duce his  machines  between  the  years  1834  and  1845  W*U  show  that  his 
failure  was  not  due  to  lack  of  ability,  but  of  cutting  apparatus.  From 
the  sworn  testimony  of  his  own  foreman,  Lovegrove,  in  the  Hussey 
extension  case  of  1861,  it  appears  that  from  1840  to  1845  ne  made 
but  from  twelve  to  forty  machines  annually,  and  from  his  own  state- 
ment he  sold  in  1847,  the  ^ast  year  of  his  patent,  only  ten  machines. 
Hussey's  brother,  who  had  established  himself  at  Auburn,  N.  Y.,  made 


29 

no  headway.  In  1846  the  Xew  York  Agricultural  Society,  at  its  fair 
held  in  Auburn,  made  an  award  to  McCormiek  over  the  Hussey- 
Auburn  machine,  and  Hussey  himself  afterwards  repudiated  the 
Auburn  machine. 

Before  this  time  McCormick's  machine  was  a  pronounced  success. 
Hussey's,  as  has  been  shown,  was  a  failure.  The  question,  therefore, 
as  to  who  invented  the  first  practical  reaper  wouM  seem  to  be  conclu- 
sively settled  in  favor  of  McCormick. 

Inasmuch  as  some  have  assumed  that  Hussey's  patent  of  1847  orl 
the  open  back  guard  was  the  invention  which  made  reaping  machines 
practical,  it  is  appropriate  to  show  that  for  several  years  after  taking 
out  that  patent  he  had  no  conception  of  a  successful  cutting  apparatus. 


Fig.  6  shows  this  cutter  of  1847.     His  patent  for  this  improvement^ 
No.  5,227,  dated  August  7,  1847,  says: 

"  In  my  original  invention  (patent  of  1833)  the  plates  are  ground! 
with  a  bevel  on  both  sides  of  the  edge.  The  purpose  of  this  is  that 
by  means  of  the  shoulder  of  the  bevel,  the  sharp  edge  is  prevented 
from  coming  into  immediate  contact  with  the  iron  in  passing  the  guard. 
This  bevel  is  not  so  necessary  for  the  fork  of  the  blades,  as  near  their 
points ;  hence,  in  this  improvement  about  one  inch  of  edge  at  the  fork 
is  flush,  on  the  under  side,  leaving  the  bevel  on  the  upper  side.  The 
design  of  this  is  that  the  grass,,  etc.,  which  is  forced  in  between  the 
blades  and  the  lower  part  of  the  guard,  shall  be  cut  up  and  worked  out 
by  the  flush  edge  coming  close  to  the  iron  at  the  fork." 

In  this  improvement  he  had  two  points,  which  he  claimed  in  the 
following  claims: 

(a)  "The  opening:  above  the  blades  at  A,  in  combination,  with, 
vibrating  blades." 


30 

fb)  "The  particular  application  of  the  flush  edge  at  the  fork  of  the 
blades  for  the  purpose  described." 

He  still  kept  his  blade's  almost  four  and  one-half  inches  long,  and, 
beveled  as  they  were  on  both  sides  to  within  one  inch  of  their  rear, 
they  acted  in  a  manner  similar  to  the  "  cutting  of  a  stick  between  two 
bricks."  They  still  drew  much  dead  grass,  weeds  and  trash  into  the 
slots  of  the  guard,  part  of  which  worked  out  at  the  rear,  because  of  the 
opening  on  the  top  part  of  the  guard.  That  this  apparatus  was  not  a 
success  is  very  plain  from  the  reports  that  we  have  of  the  operation  of 
the  machine. 

In  1851,  at  the  World's  Fair  in  London,  the  official  trials  were  held 
on  the  farm  of  Mr.  Mechi,  in  Essex.  The  official  report  of  Mr.  John- 
son, the  American  Commissioner,  says : 

"  The  wheat  upon  which  the  trial  was  to  be  made  was  quite  green 
and  remarkably  heavy,  and  everything  as  unfavorable  as  could  well  be. 
.  .  .  The  first  machine  tried  was  Hussey's,  which  did  not  succeed 
at  all,  as  it  clogged  very  soon  and  passed  over  the  grain  without  cut- 
ting it.  After  this  had  been  tried  two  or  three  times  and  failed,  it  was 
proposed  by  one  of  the  jury  that  no  further  trial  be  made,  but  it  was 
insisted  that  the  other  American  reaper  (McCormick's)  should  be  tried. 
.  .  .  The  machine  was  started.  After  it  had  passed  its  length  the 
clean  path  made  by  the  reaper  showed  that  the  work  was  done,  and  the 
reaper  was  successful." 

Mr.  Hussey,  however,  was  not  satisfied,  and  another  trial  was 
obtained.  The  following  is  from  the  report  of  Mr.  Pusey,  M.  P.,  who 
was  one  of  the  judges: 

"  In  the  first  trial  at  Tip  Tree  Hall  Mr.  McCormick's  reaper  worked 
well,  the  other  (Hussey's)  did  not  go  at  all.  As  the  corn,  however,  was 
then  green,  it  was  thought  right  to  make  further  trial.  .  .  .  The 
object  of  our  second  trial  was  to  decide  whether  either,  or  both,  was 
sufficiently  good  to  receive  our  Council  Medal.  Mr.  McCormick's 
worked  in  this  trial,  as  it  has  since  worked  at  Cirencester  College  and 
elsewhere,  commanding  the  admiration  of  practical  farmers,  and  there- 
fore received  the  Council  Medal.  Mr.  Hussey's  sometimes  became 
clogged,  as  in  the  former  trial  at  Tip  Tree,  and  therefore  could  not 
possibly  obtain  that  distinction." 

The  operation  of  the  Hussey  machine  at  Paris  in  1855  has  been 
clearly  shown  by  the  quotation  heretofore  given  to  have  been  almost  a 
failure,  for 

"  The  poor  horses,  although  young  and  powerful,  driven  at  great 


speed,  were  completely  exhausted.     This  machine  works  heavily;  it 
requires  too  much  power  to  drive  its  ponderous  knife." 

In  a  paper  read  before  the  British  Society  for  the  Advancement  of 
Art  and  Science,  in  1853,  Alfred  Crosskill,  the  first  manufacturer  in 
England  of  the  Hussey  and  Bell  type  of  machines,  makes  as  fair  a 
statement  for  Hussey's  cutting  apparatus  as  can  be  made: 

"  The  shape  of  the  knives  and  guards  varies  in  both  machines. 
Mr.  McCormick's  cutters  form  an  angle  with  the  guard  of  60  to  70 
degrees  and  have  their  edges  serrated.  .  .  .  The  cutters  used  by 
Hussey  make  an  angle  of  10  or  20  degrees  with  the  guard,  and  are 
much  more  acute  than  those  used  by  his  rival.  They  are  plain  edged, 
and  their  action  is  to  chop  the  corn  (grain)  between  them  and  the 
guard  through  which  they  pass.  His  form  of  a  knife  bends  the  grasses 
through  the  guards  and  in  time  chokes  up  the  knives." 

Again  the  writer  stated : 

"  In  Hussey's  they  form  a  very  acute  angle  with  the  guards,  which 
are  plain  edged,  and  therefore  chop  off  the  straws  by  means  of  very 
rapid  motion  through  the  fingers." 

Mr.  Jacob  Wilson,  in  his  celebrated  prize  essay  before  the  Royal 
Agricultural  Society,  referred  to  the  two  machines  as  follows: 

'*  In  Mr.  McCormick's  machine  the  knife  had  a  separate  edge,  the 
numerous  blades  being  riveted  on  to  the  bar  in  the  form  of  an  obtuse 
angle,  consequently  its  action  is  similar  to  that  of  a  saw.  It  was  more 
desirable,  more  easily  worked,  and  less  liable  to  choke  than  Hussey's. 
In  Hussey's  the  knife  formed  a  very  acute  angle,  which  was  smooth 
edged,  and  chopped  the  straw  by  a  rapid  motion  through  and  against 
the  fingers,  but  unless  driven  at  a  considerable  speed  was  liable  to 
choke.  A  friend,  who  worked  one  of  these  machines  in  America  for 
several  years,  informs  me  that  it  was  no  uncommon  practice  to  have 
the  horses  going  at  a  sharp  trot  during  the  whole  day  to  prevent  the 
choking — of  course  having  relays  of  men  and  horses.  .  .  .  The 
obtuse  angle  cutter  (McCormick's  shear  draw  cut)  is  simple,  effective, 
durable,  seldom  requires  sharpening,  and  consumes  less  power  than 
any  other  form." 

The  Royal  Agricultural  College  Farm,  in  1852,  held  a  trial  between 
Hussey's  and  McCormick's  reapers  lasting  nine  days.  A  committee 
was  appointed  and  the  trial  was  one  of  the  most  severe  ever  held.  The 
report  of  the  judges  states : 

"  McCormick's  machine  appeared  to  be  free  from  clogging.  The 
place  at  which  it  was  necessary  for  the  horses  to  walk  in  order  to 
secure  the  proper  working  of  the  machines  appeared  to  us  a  most 


32 

material  feature  in  their  claims.  The  horses  which  drew  Hussey's  ma- 
chine was  driven  by  a  man  riding  on  the  near  horse,  and  were  kept  at 
a  fast  walk,  which  we  estimated  at  nearly  four  miles  per  hour — certain- 
ly at  a  speed  far  exceeding  the  ordinary  walk  of  regular  cart  horses, 
and  this  speed  appeared  necessary  to  insure  efficient  working;  a  re- 
quirement which  must  be  very  distressing  to  heavy  horses.  McCor- 
mick's,  on  the  contrary,  was  driven  by  a  man  seated  on  a  machine  at 
the  ordinary  pace  of  cart  horses  (say,  2%  miles  per  hour),  a  rate  at 
which  a  pair  of  horses  might  work  for  a  whole  day  as  at  the  plow,  and 
with  as  little  distress." 

Another  great  trial  was  held  in  1852,  at  Driffield,  England,  and  the 
committee  reported: 

"  Your  committee  are  further  of  opinion,  that  from  the  violent 
reverbatory  motion  imparted  to  every  part  of  Hussey's  machine,  dura- 
bility is  not  to  be  expected,  and  th  at  the  form  of  the  serrated  cutters 
in  McCormick's  machine  is  far  preferable  to  the  deeply  indented, 
smooth  edged  cutters  in  Hussey's,  and  that  they  will  not  nearly  so  often 
need  renewing." 

In  the  account  of  the  annual  exhibition  of  the  Royal  Agricultural 
Society  in  1853,  published  in  the  Farmers'  Magazine,  it  is  stated: 

"  Mr.  Hussey,  the  American,  also  made  some  excellent  work  with 
his  improved  machine,  which  is  completely  altered  (by  its  English 
maker)  since  the  great  exhibition-  .  .  .  The  speed  of  the  cutting 
knives  is  increased  so  that  the  horses  may  go  one-fourth  slower.  The 
knife  used  in  America,  where  the  climate  is  very  dry,  and  the  crops  light, 
was  formed  to  cut  an  angle  of  20  degrees.  It  is  now  made  to  cut  at  an 
angle  of  45  degrees,  and  with  sickled  edges  to  suit  the  moist  condition 
of  the  heavier  crops  and  humid  climate  of  Great  Britain.  This  form 
of  knife  or  cutter  is  not  only  better  adapted  for  greenish  crops  in  wet 
or  dry  weather,  but  it  greatly  reduces  the  liability  to  clog." 

In  the  Mechanics'  Magazine  of  May  22,  1858,  there  is  a  long  dis- 
cussion on  reaping  machines.  In  speaking  of  Hussey  the  article  states: 

"  The  knife  of  the  McCormick  consists  of  a  series  of  very  short,, 
obtuse,  angular  blades,  so  as  to  form  a  cutting  edge,  which  does  not 
depart  very  considerably  from  a  straight  line.  The  whole  of  the  cutting 
edges  are  finely  serrated  after  the  m  anner  of  the  sickle  edge.  The  cut 
is  what  is  known  as  a  'draw  cut'  in  opposition  to  the  chopping  action 
of  the  Hussey  knife.  .  .  .  In  cutting,  MlcCormick's  reaper  has  this 
great  advantage,  that  the  knife  would  never  clog  in  damp,  foul  crops, 
while  the  Hussey  machines  would  only  cut  when  the  crop  was  dry." 

The  same  article  says  of  the  Bell  machine : 

*'  This  machine  had  lain  dormant  for  many  years.    That  it  was 


33 

not  successful  will  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  Crosskill  subsequently 
discarded  both  the  shears  and  the  endless  web,  substituting  McCor- 
mick's  knife  for  the  shears." 

These  Englishmen,  disinterested,  as  between  McCormick  and  Hus- 
sey,  were  good  critics  of  these  two  types  of  cutting  apparatus.  Their 
unanimous  opinion  was  that  Hussey's  cutting  apparatus  was  not  a  suc- 
cess until  it  was  changed  so  that  the  knife  was  beveled  only  on  the 
upper  edge,  made  to  fit  closely  to  the  guard,  and  shortened  so  as  to 
increase  the  angle.  These  changes  were  copied  by  the  makers  of 
Hussey's  machines  from  McCormick,  who  from  the  first  had  a  knife 
that  was  sharp  only  on  one  edge ;  that  had  serrations  and  was  so  posi- 
tioned that  the  angle  between  the  knife  and  the  guard  was  much  great- 
er than  in  Hussey's,  thus  giving  a  "  draw  cut"  instead  of  a  chopping 
cut. 

But  Hussey  himself  did  not  make  these  necessary  changes.  His 
idea  of  a  chopping  cut,  with  a  knife  beveled  on  both  edges,  was  adhered 
to  by  him  in  his  own  manufactures  until  the  last,  and  that  it  is  a  failure 
was  told  by  the  fact  that  in  1858  his  manufacturing  establishment  made 
but  ten  machines.  Gideon  A.  Allen,  one  of  the  firm  of  Minturn  & 
Allen,  of  Urbana,  O.,  testified  in  the  Hussey  extension  case  on  the  $th 
of  February,  1861,  as  follows: 

"  Q.  What  kind  of  harvesting  machines  do  you  make? 

"  A.  Hussey  machines. 

"  Q.  Please  say  what  style  of  knives  you  used;  did  you  make  any 
changes;  if  so,  what,  and  why  did  you  make  them? 

"  A.  The  first  years  we  made  the  knife  like  M  2  (a  long  blade,  sim- 
ilar to  Fig.  6).  After  that  we  commenced  cutting  them  shorter  and 
making  them  wider;  the  third  year  pretty  much  like  M  3  as  to  size  and 
shape,  probably  ground  a  very  little  way  from  the  point  on  the  under 
side;  after  that  we  kept  making  them  a  little  shorter  and  a  little  wider 
and  quit  grinding  on  the  under  side,  leaving  the  under  side  flush  all 
the  way.  The  reason  why  we  ground  them  only  on  top  was  that  by 
leaving  the  blade  lay  flat  on  the  guards  it  would  prevent  the  grass 
working  underneath  the  blades,  which  we  found  it  did  do  in  a  great 
measure.  There  was  another  advantage,  it  brought  the  cutting  edge 
nearer  to  the  guards,  and  was  less  liable  to  leave  the  grass  uncut." 

Minturn,  his  partner,  testified  to  practically  the  same  effect.  The 
changes  made  by  these  men  on  the  Hussey  cutting  apparatus  were 
directly  in  line  with  the  principles  of  cutting  which  McCormick  had 
used  for  more  than  ten  years  and  shown  to  be  a  success. 


34 

In  1856  P.  H.  Watson,  a  patent  attorney  of  Washington,  who  had 
been  interested  for  the  defense  in  the  suit  of  McCormick  vs.  Manny, 
and  who*  had  in  that  connection  become  familiar  with  harvester  inven- 
tions, sought  Hussey  and  explained  to  him  wherein  his  cutting  device 
was  wrong,  and  urged'  upon  him  the  reissue  of  his  patent  of  1847.  Pre~ 
paratory  to  this  reissue  Watson  was  retained  and  the  following  list  of 
lawyers:  Stanton,  the  greatest  patent  lawyer  of  his  day;  Harding, then  a 
young  man,  but  since  famous;  Gifford,  Keller,  Dodge,  McLean,  Law, 
Hewitt  and  Scott.  The  total  fees  paid  these  men  in  four  years  was 
$33,393.87,  an  exorbitant  sum  for  that  early  day.  These  figures  and 
names  are  taken  from  the  statement  filed  by  Hussey  when  obtaining 
the  extension  of  his  patent  in  1861.  The  patent  of  1847  was  then 
reissued.  The  original  patent  stated  in  the  first  claim  that  the  guards 
were  to  be  "  open  on  top  and  to  be  used  in  combination  with  a  knife" 
Watson,  from,  his  experience  with  the  McCormick  machine,  knew  that 
McCormick  had  used  a  knife  in  combination  with  guard  fingers  that 
were  open  beloiv,  and  so  this  claim  was  reissued  to  cover  *'  a  scalloped 
knife  in  combination  with  open  guard  fingers."  Nothing  was  said 
about  the  beveling  of  the  knife  upon  both  edges ;  and  for  the  first  time 
Hussey  (?)  made  the  invention  for  which  he  has  been  given  so  much 
credit.  To  the  average  man,  however,  this  invention  will  appear  due 
to  the  $33,000  that  he  paid  to  that  long  array  of  famous  lawyers.  This 
reissue  by  Hussey  of  his  patents ;  the  employment  of  the  leading  patent 
lawyers  of  America,  paying  them  immense  fees,  and  the  manipulation 
of  his  patent  through  the  Patent  Office,  is  ample  evidence  of  Hussey's 
shrewdness  and  business  ability.  At  this  time  his  manufacture  of 
machines  had  decreased  to  a  very  few  (nineteen  in  1857),  and  he  seemed 
to  realize  that  as  a  manufacturer  he  was  out  of  the  market,  and  that 
his  sole  opportunity  lay  in  reissuing  his  patents  to  cover  a  cutting 
device  which  should  contain  far  more  of  McCormick's  idea  than  of  his 
own. 

If  Mr.  Hussey's  conception  in  1846  had  been  clear  on  even  this 
feature,  he  would  have  been  entitled  to  the  credit  for  an  improvement  of 
value ;  but  he  had  no  conception  of  the  essential  requisite  of  a  "  draw 
cut."  In  securing  his  reissued  patent  he  completely  changed  it  from 
the  original.  The  knife  was  changed  from  "  a  knife"  to  "  a  scalloped 
knife"  and  the  open  guard  changed  from  "  a  guard  open  on  top"  to 


35 

"  an  open  guard."  This  reissue  practice  finally  reached  such  outrage- 
ous extremes  that  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  1880  turned 
down  the  whole  subject  of  reissue.  Such  a  reissue  as  Hussey's  attor- 
neys obtained  in  1857  would  to-day  be  absolutely  void. 

McCormick' s  Cutting  Apparatus. — I  quote  from  the  description 
of  McCormick's  first  reaper,  found  in  the  second  volume  of  the  Me- 
chanics' Magazine  of  1833,  as  follows: 

"  There  is  a  wheel  .  .  .  turning  a  small  crank,  and  from  this 
crank  the  knife  receives  a  vibratory  motion.  It  is  about  4^  feet  long 
with  an  edge  somewhat  like  that  of  a  sickle  (having  teeth),  straight  and 
projecting  into  the  grain  at  right  angles  to  the  horse.  .  .  .  The 
grain  is  prevented  from  slipping  with  the  edge  of  the  knife  by  pieces 
of  wire  projecting  before  it,  within  two  or  three  inches  of  each  other/' 

I  know  of  no  patent,  machine,  experiment,  newspaper  report,  or 
tradition  of  a  reciprocating  knife  driven  by  a  crank  with  fixed  fingers 
to  prevent  the  grain  from  slipping  with  the  knife,  before  that  of  Mc- 
Cormick,  in  1831. 

In  the  McCormick  patent  of  June  I,  1834,  two  ways  of  making  the 
knife  are  described.  The  one  used  was: 

"A  vibrating  blade  operated  by  a  crank,  having  the  edge  either 
smooth  or  with  teeth,  either  with  stationary  wires  or  pieces  above  and 
below,  and  projecting  before  it,  for  the  purpose  of  steadying  and  sup- 
porting the  grain  while  cutting;  or  using  a  double  crank  and  another 
blade  or  vibrating  bar." 

The  alternative  plan  of  two  vibrating  blades  was  never  used. 

From  the  testimony,  under  oath,  of  Wm.  S.  and  Leander  J.  Mc- 
Cormick, taken  fifty  years  ago,  it  appears  that  the  fingers  or  guards 
did  project  over  the  knife,  and  were  bent  back  beneath  its  cutting  edge. 
Wm.  S.  McCormick,  describing  these  fingers,  stated  that  "  the  back 
end  of  the  iron  fingers  was  made  in  the  shape  of  a  fork  and  that  fork 
extending  back  to  the  platform  was  riveted  to  a  wooden  pin,  while  the 
front  end  projected  forward  over  and  back  under  the  edge  of  the 
reciprocating  knife-"  The  drawing  herewith  (Fig.  7)  shows  the  cutting 
apparatus  that  was  used  in  the  machine  down  to  1839.  It  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  McCormick,  after  using  his  reaper  in  the  harvest 
of  1832  to  harvest  fifty  acres  of  grain,  and  in  the  harvests  of  1833-34-35 
to  harvest  considerable  crops  of  grain,  went  into  the  business  of  smelt- 
ing iron  in  1835,  which  then  promised  large  profits.  The  panic  of 


36 

1837  caused  the  failure  of  the  iron  business,  and  it  was  not  until  the 
harvest  of  1839  that  he  was  able  again  to  take  up  his  reaper.     In  the 


Staunton,  Va.,  Spectator,  of  July  25,.  1839,  i&  an  editorial  giving  a  favor- 
able account  of  a  public  trial  in  that  harvest  on  the  farm  of  Mr.  Joseph 
Smith,  and  stating  that  it  was  held  in  the  presence  of  200  persons.  This 
was  followed  on  August  1 1 ,  in  the  same  paper,  by  an  advertisement  of 
Mr.  McCormick's  containing  the  certificate  of  Abram  Smith  and  eleven 
other  gentlemen  to  the  efficient  working  of  the  machine. 

In  1840  the  fingers  were  changed  to  double-closed  ones.  In  the 
early  months  of  that  year  the  Richmond'  Enquirer  contains  a  certificate 
of  five  gentlemen  as  to  the  operation  of  the  machine  at  different  times. 
As  a  result  of  these  trials  Mr.  Abram  Smith  ordered  a  machine,  as  did 
also  Richard  Sampson,  the  "Farmer  of  Virginia,"  but  both  machines 
drew  grass  into  the  grooves  on  the  under  side  of  the  fingers,  and  did 
not  operate  well.  These  machines  had  the  same  trouble  that  Hussey 
encountered  when  he  sent  his  machines  to  Virginia  four  years  later. 
In  1841  Smith's  machine  was  improved  by  the  substitution  of  a  new 
sickle  with  reverse  angle  teeth  cutting  both  ways,  and  it  performed 
satisfactorily  in  that  harvest.  So  successful  was  it  in  1841  that  Mr. 
McCormick  advertised  his  machine  in  the  spring  of  1842  in  the  Rich- 
mond Enquirer.  For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  harvesting  ma- 
chinery his  machine  was  warranted  to  do  good  work ;  to  cut  one  and  a 
half  acres  per  hour,  and  to  save  a  bushel  of  wheat  to  every  acre. 

"  The  undersigned  .  .  .  determined  that  this  machine  should 
get  into  use  (if  at  all)  upon  its  merits,  and  therefore  upon  his  responsi- 
bility." 

It  is  owing  to  this  conservatism  in  the  introduction  of  his  machine,, 
and  in  obtaining  his  patents,  that  much  of  his  trouble  in  after  years 


37 

arose.  No  one  of  his  three  great  patents  was  taken  out  until  long  after 
he  had  fully  and  carefully  experimented  and  put  the  machine,  as  pat- 
ented, into  public  operation  and  use. 


Fig.8 


In  1842  the  cutting  apparatus  (Fig.  8)  shown  in  the  patent  of  1845 
was  used.  This  year  seven  machines  were  sold  and  Wm.  N.  Peyton, 
who  had  one  of  them,  wrote  to  the  Southern  Planter  in  August,  1842, 
as  follows : 

"  It  has  been  worked  this  harvest  under  every  disadvantage 
.  .  .  in  consequence  of  the  unprecedented  weather  we  have  had. 
.  .  .  The  reaper  has  cut  all  descriptions  of  wheat — green,  ripe, 
rusted  as  badly  as  wheat  could  have  it,  lying  and  standing.  .  .  . 
No  weather  has  prevented  the  machine  from  working  except  when  the 
ground  was  so  soft  as  to  the  mire  the  wheels." 

General  Corbin  Braxton  also  furnished  to  the  Farmers'  Register 
an  account  of  the  operation  of  his  machine : 

"  As  soon  as  the  first  machine  was  put  together  we  started  it  on  a 
wet,  damp  day,  in  very  heavy  wheat  not  yet  ripe  .  .  .  two  mules 
were  hitched,  and  to  my  astonishment  it  operated  without  stoppage  or 
difficulty." 

In  1843  Mr.  McCormick  sold  twenty-nine  reapers,  and  he  had 
certificates  like  the  above  from  twenty-seven  of  them.  In  1844  fifty 
were  sold  and  gave  the  best  of  satisfaction,  and  from  the  work  of  these 
machines  in  1844  Mr.  McCormick  licensed  five  builders  of  his  reaper 
at  a  license  fee  of  $20  per  machine.  Brown,  in  Cincinnati,  was  to  build 
100,  Seymour  &  Morgan,  at  Brockport,  N.  Y.,  in  the  eastern  territory, 
and  Fitch,  Backus  &  Co.,  of  the  same  place,  for  the  western  territory, 
were  licensed.  Five  counties  were  sold  in  Virginia,  and  the  shops  on 
the  home  farm  were  to  continue  building  under  license. 


38 

It  was  with  much  difficulty  that  Mr.  McCormick  moved  from  place 
to  place  over  the  country,  making  most  of  the  journeys  on  horseback. 
He  was  without  means,  and  dependent,  largely,  upon  the  assistance 
of  others;  but  his  reaper  was  successful,  and  the  thousands  of  them 
that  he  sold,  with  the  cutting  apparatus  of  1842,  shows  conclusively 
that  his  was  a  practical  machine  years  before  Hussey's  cutting  appara- 
tus had  been  made  a  success.  Attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  Mc- 
Cormick had  a  clear  idea,  in  1842,  of  cutting  by  a  reciprocating  blade 
that  slid  upon  a  curved  support  to  hold  the  blade  closely  against  a 
finger,  thus  giving  a  shear  cut  by  a  draw  motion.  Hussey  for  years,  in 
fact,  never  in  the  machines  he  made  himself,  had  a  "  draw  cut."  It 
is  the  "  shear  draw  cut"  that  makes  the  modern  cutting  apparatus  suc- 


cessful.  The  drawing  herewith  (Fig.  9)  shows  in  full  lines  Hussey's 
long-pointed  knife,  which  formed  an  angle  of  but  18  degrees  between 
its  edge  and  the  guard.  Even  in  the  mowing  machine  of  to-day  the 
angle  is  35  degrees — almost  twice  as  great — and  in  the  harvester  it  is 
55  degrees — three  times  as  great.  The  line  made  in  dots  shows  the 
mower  section  and  that  in  dashes  the  harvester  section  that  is  in  use  at 
the  present  time.  The  most  careful  work  in  the  making  of  harvesting 
machinery  is  the  fitting  of  the  knives  so  they  will  reciprocate  through 


39 

the  guards  and,  being  beveled  on  but  one  side,  will  form  with  the  guard 
a  perfect  "  shear  cut.''  Hussey's  knife  being  beveled  on  both  edges, 
long  and  straight,  had  not  a  shear  cut  because  its  edge  did  not  strike 
the  edge  of  the  guard,  nor  had  it  a  draw  cut  because  of  its  deep  pitch. 
It  was  therefore  necessary  to  propel  it  with  great  speed  to  make  it 
operate  at  all,  with  its  chopping  cut. 

In  1857  McCormick  answered  Hussey's  suit  by  saying  that  he  had 
used  the  vibrating  knife,  moving  through  fingers  open  on  their  lower 
sides,  in  1831  and  on  to  1839.  Judge  McLean,  in  his  decision,  stated 
that  Hussey's  reissued  patent  was  for  a  scalloped  blade  moving  through 
open  fingers;  that  McCormick's  earlier  machine  had  a  straight  blade 
with  a  serrated  edge  in  open  fingers,  and  therefore  did  not  anticipate 
Hussey's  invention. 

In  the  attacks  made  upon  McCormick's  position  as  inventor  of  the 
reaper  the  writers  go  through  all  the  early  machines,  none  of  which 
harvested  grain ;  they  pick  out  a  side  draft  from  one ;  a  small  cylinder, 
which  they  call  a  reel,  from  another;  a  long  guard,  which  they  term  a 
divider,  from  another;  a  platform  from  a  newspaper  account  of  a  ma- 
chine that  was  never  built;  a  reciprocating  knife  that  would  not  recip- 
rocate— and  then  say,  "  McCormick  invented  nothing — every  device 
of  his  can  be  found  in  earlier  patents."  When,  however,  they  measure 
Hussey  they  do  not  fise  the  same  yardstick  with  which  they  measure 
McCormick's  invention.  If  they  did  they  would  find  Hussey's  open 
back-guard  in  McCormick's  early  machine  and  the  scalloped  recipro- 
cating knife  in  Manning's  patent  of  1831.  Thus  by  the  same  ride  with 
which  they  measured  McCormick,  Hussey  invented  nothing.  Judge 
McLean  said,  however,  that  it  was  well  settled  law  that  "  Inventors  of 
a  combination  are  as  much  entitled  to  suppress  every  other  combina- 
tion of  the  same  ingredients  as  any  other  class  of  inventors." 
Summarizing  on  the  cutting  apparatus : 

(a)  McCormick  was  first  (in  1831)  to  use  a  reciprocating  knife 
driven  by  a  crank  and  pitman  with  fixed  fingers  to  prevent  the  grain 
from  moving  with  the  knife. 

(b)  Hussey  made,  in   1833,  a  reciprocating  blade  worked  by  a 
crank,  the  blade  fitted  with  knives  three  inches  wide  and  four  and  one- 
half  inches  long,  beveled  on  both  sides,  with  fingers  having  slots  into 
which  the  knives  drew  trash  and  damp  straw  because  of  the  ''chopping 
cut,"  thus  making  the  plan  a  failure. 


40 

(c)  In  1842  McCormick  made  the  improvement  on  his  cutting- 
apparatus,  shown  in  his  patent  of  1845,  serrating  the  blade  first  one 
way  and  then  in  the  opposite  direction;  made  large  curved  open  sup- 
ports for  the  blade  to  reciprocate  in  and  spear-shaped  fingers  to  hold 
the  straw  to  the  blade,  thus  making  a  "  draw  shear  cut"  that  would  not 
clog  in  damp  grain.     He  thus  obtained  a  successful  cutting  apparatus 
that  enabled  him  to  sell  thousands  of  reapers. 

(d)  Hussey  in  1846,  first  built  and  sold  his  improved  cutting  appa- 
ratus, shown  in  his  patent  of  1847,  opening  the  rear  of  the  upper  mem- 
ber of  the  guard  and  keeping  about  one  inch  of  the  rear  part  of  the 
knife  flush  with  the  bottom.     It  was  somewhat  better  than  his  original 
plan,  but  still  was  not  a  success,  as  it  lacked  the  "  draw  shear  cut." 

(e)  In  1852  McCormick  returned  to  his  open  finger  and  slightly 
scalloped  his  blade,  thus  making  his  "  draw  shear  cut"  principle  more 
effective.      Some  builders  of  cutting  apparatus,  similar  to  Hussey's, 
shortened  the  blades  and  ceased  beveling  them  on  the  under  side,  thus 
coming  more  closely  to  McCormick's  "  draw  shear  cut"  and  making 
the  Hussey  apparatus  more  effective- 

(f)  Hussey's  attorneys,  seeing  that  his  reaper  was  a  failure  (the 
sale  shortly  dropping  to  ten  a  year),  got  the  leading  patent  attorneys 
of  the  country  to  reissue  his  patents  so  as  to  cover  a  scalloped  blade 
working  in  open  fingers,  and  then  for  the  first  time,  twenty-five  years 
after  the  invention  of  the  reaper  by  McCormick,  did  he  have  an  im- 
provement of  value  in  harvesters.    Upon  this  one  minor  feature  (the 
work  of  attorneys)  rests  Obed  Hussey's  only  shadow  of  a  claim  to  the 
invention  of  the  first  successful  reaper. 


III.  -TREATMENT    ACCORDED     MCCORMICK    AND     HUSSEY    BT    THE    GOVERN- 
MENT. 

This  subject  has  little,  if  any,  bearing  on  the  question  of  "who  in- 
vented the  reaper."  The  fact,  however,  that  the  Board  of  Commission- 
ers for  the  Extension  of  Patents  refused  in  1848  to  extend  McCormick's 
patent  of  1834  is  mentioned  in  the  Protest  as  a  point  against  the  nov- 
elty of  McCormick's  first  machine. 

The  extension  of  Hussey's  patent  was  also  refused  by  the  same 
Board,  but  mention  of  that  fact  was  carefully  omitted  in  the  Protest. 
Hussey  also  applied  to  Congress  for  an  extension  and  was  refused, 


41 

although  he  kept  his  application  pending  eight  years ;  and  this  also  the 
Protest  forgot  to  mention.  McCormick  applied  to  Congress  for  an 
extension  of  his  patent  of  1834,  but  was  not  successful.  The  two 
inventors  thus  stand,  in  regard  to  the  extension  of  their  first  patents, 
in  identically  the  same  position. 

Hussey  asked  the  Patent  Office  for  an  extension  of  his  patent  in 
the  fall  of  1847,  and  was  refused  on  a  technicality.  His  patent  then 
expired  on  the  3ist  day  of  December,  1847.  McCormick,  on  the  iQth 
day  of  January,  1848,  asked  the  Committee  on  Patents  for  an  extension 
of  his  patent,  which  would  expire  on  the  2ist  day  of  June,  1848.  The 
extension  was  refused  on  technical  grounds.  The  following  letter  of 
Edmund  Burke,  Commissioner  of  Patents,  says: 

"  \\ithin  ten  or  twelve  days  of  the  expiration  of  his  patent,  Hussey 
applied  to  me,  as  Commissioner  of  Patents,  for  an  extension.  I  in- 
formed him  that,  inasmuch  as  the  Act  of  Congress,  prescribing  the 
mode  in  which  patents  should  be  extended,  required  a  reasonable 
notice  to  be  given  to  the  public,  .  .  .  and  as  there  was  not  time  to 
give  the  required  notice  in  his  case  I  advised  Mr-  Hussey  ...  to 
petition  Congress  for  an  extension,  which  body  had  the  power  to 
grant  it. 

"  During  the  same  winter,  and  after  Mr.  Hussey  had  applied  to 
me  for  an  extension  of  his  patent,  Mr.  McCormick  made  application 
in  due  form  and  in  season  for  the  extension  of  his  patent.  Due  notice 
was  given,  and  on  the  day  appointed  for  a  hearing,  Mr.  Hussey  ap- 
peared and  contested  the  extension  of  Mr.  McCormick's  patent.  And 
on  examination  of  the  records  of  the  Patent  Office  and  a  comparison 
of  the  two  patents,  it  appeared  they  both  covered  one  or  more  fea- 
tures substantially  identical  in  principle,  but  not  the  same  precise  com- 
binations; and  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Hussey's  patent  bore  date  before  Mr. 
McCormick's,  the  Board  decided  that  he  was  prima  facie  the  in- 
ventor of  the  feature,  or  rather  claim,  which  conflicted.  But  Mr-  Mc- 
Cormick contended  that  he  invented  the  part  of  the  machine  embraced 
in  both  patents  one  or  two  years  before  Hussey  obtained  his  patent, 
and  was,  in  fact,  the  first  and  original  inventor;  and  he  prayed  for  a 
continuance  of  the  hearing  until  he  could  take  testimony  with  due  no- 
tice to  Mr.  Hussey.  He  complied  with  the  orders  of  the  Board;  but  on 
an  examination  of  the  testimony  on  the  next  day  of  hearing,  it  was 
found  to  have  been  informally  taken,  and  therefore  ruled  out." 

The  minutes  of  the  McCormick  case  before  the  Board  of  Exten- 
sion are  given: 

"  March  23,  1848,  the  Board  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  and 
"  Ordered,  That  the  further  hearing  of  this  application  be  post- 
poned to  Wednesday,  the  29th  of  March,  and  that  the  said  McCormick 


42 

be  directed  to  furnish  satisfactory  testimony  that  the  invention  of  his 
machine  was  prior  to  the  invention  of  a  similar  machine  by  Obed  Hus- 
sey,  and  that  he  be  directed  to  give  due  notice  to  the  said  Hussey  of 
the  time  and  place  of  taking  of  said  testimony. 

"  March  29,  1848.  The  Board  met  agreeably  to  adjournment. 
Present:  Jas.  Buchanan,  Edmund  Burke  and  R.  H.  Gillett,  and  having 
examined  the  evidence  adduced  in  the  case,  decided  that  said  patent 
ought  not  to  be  extended. 

"  (Signed)     JAMES  BUCHANAN,  Secretary  of  State. 

"  EDMUND  BURKE,  Commissioner  of  Patents. 

"  R.  H.  GILLETT,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury." 

As  was  common  in  extension  cases,  the  Commissioner  of  Patents 
had  previously  asked  the  Examiner  in  the  Patent  Office  to  report  on 
McCormick's  patent,  and  this  report,  dated  January  22,  1848,  stated 
that: 

"  The  cutting  knife  and  mode  of  operating  it,  the  fingers  to  guide 
the  grain  and  the  revolving  rack  for  gathering  the  grain,  were  not 
new  at  the  time  of  granting  said  letters  patent-  The  knife,  fingers  and 
general  arrangement  and  operation  of  the  cutting  apparatus,  are 
found  in  the  reaping  machine  of  Obed  Hussey,  patented  3ist  of  De- 
cember, 1833.  The  revolving  rack  presents  novelty  chiefly  in  form,  as  its 
operation  is  similar  to  the  revolving  frame  of  James  Ten  Eyck,  pat- 
ented 2d  November,  1825.  Respectfully  submitted, 

"CHARLES  G.  PAGE,  Examiner." 

Page,  the  Examiner,  who  knew  little  about  reaping  machines, 
called  McCormick's  reel  a  "  revolving  rack."  Ten  Eyck,  in  1825,  took 
a  patent  on  a  reaper  which  proved  a  complete  failure.  It  had  revolv- 
ing knives  similar  to  those  of  lawn  mowers.  Page,  noticing  that  the 
pictures  resembled  each  other,  mistook  the  drawing  of  this  cutting  ap- 
paratus for  a  reel,  and  cited  it  as  an  anticipation.  He  made  a  mistake, 
which  merely  emphasized  his  ignorance  and  lack  of  knowledge  on  the 
subject  This  error  of  Page's  alone  was  fatal  to  McCormick's  applica- 
tion, for  at  that  early  day  Buchanan  and  Gillett  accepted  Page's  opin- 
ion that  the  gathering-reel  and  the  cutting-cylinder  were  identical  con- 
structions having  the  same  functions.  Burke,  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents,  recognized  the  distinction,  and  was  in  favor  of  the  extension. 
He  signed  the  decision  only  because  it  was  the  custom  for  all  to  unite 
in  the  ruling  of  the  majority.  Viewing  this  matter  in  the  light  of  fifty- 
years'  experience,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  fatal  Page's  blunder  was  to  the 
interests  of  McCormick's  extension.  The  only  other  point  in  Page's 
report  was  the  cutting  apparatus  of  Hussey.  Having  invented  his 


43 

reaper  two  years  before  Hussey,  McCormick  proceeded  to  obtain  ex 
parte  affidavits  setting  forth  the  invention  and  successful  operation  of 
his  reaper  in  1831.  Hussey,  however,  wrote  the  following  letter  on 
February  21,  1848,  to  the  Board  of  Extension: 

"  I  wish  hereby  to  interpose  my  objections  to  the  extension  of 
Cyrus  H-  McCormick's  patent  for  his  reaping  machine  by  your  honor- 
able Board. 

"  My  objections  are  these: 

"  (i)  The  machine  has  not  proved  a  useful  invention  to  the  public. 

"  (2)  Mr.  McCormick  has  been  rewarded  by  sales  of  patent  rights 
and  by  the  extensive  sales  of  his  machine,  before  the  real  merits  of  the 
machine  were  fully  known. 

"  (3)  It  will  be  an  injury  to  myself.'' 

He  then  produced  several  letters  in  relation  to  the  work  of  cer- 
tain of  the  hundreds  of  reapers  that  McCormick's  licensees  had  sold, 
and  finally  got  back  to  the  1843  trial  that  was  ne^  between  his  and 
McCormick's  machine  in  Virginia,  in  which  he  was  defeated,  as  shown 
by  the  unanimous  report  of  the  judges.  He  says: 

"  Our  machines  came  before  the  public  simultaneously  and  got 
credit  in  widely  different  locations.  They  were  first  operated  together 
in  Richmond,  Ya,,  in  1843.  ^n  unfair  trial  was  brought  about  in  the 
same  field,  where  a  preference  was  given  to  McCormick's  machine, 
which  was  accidental  and  should  not  have  been  given.'' 

It  will  be  remembered,  from  the  quotations  already  given,  that 
Hussey  had  challenged  McCormick  for  this  trial  several  months  beiore 
the  harvest  of  1843.  The  letter  further  says: 

"  By  the  false  position  in  which  Mr.  McCormick's  machine  was 
then  placed  he  made  extensive  sales  of  his  patent  rights,  which  filled 
the  country  with  machines  which  are  now  going  out  of  use.  I  need 
not  say  that  this  state  of  things  has  had  a  disastrous  effect  on  my  in- 
terests, as  well  as  on  the  interests  of  the  farmers  of  the  country,  which 
has  been  fully  developed  since  that  time,  and  it  is  believed  that  a  fur- 
ther extension  of  McCormick's  patent  will  serve  to  perpetuate  in  some 
degree  the  evil  effects  on  farmers,  while  it  may  operate  to  retard  the 
just  reward  which  the  subscriber  claims  for  having  produced  the  best 
reaping  machine  which  was  ever  offered  to  the  world,  which  reward 
he  feels  himself  kept  out  of,  in  a  great  measure,  by  the  false  position 
his  machine  was  placed  in  by  the  award  of  the  public  committee,  which 
has  since  been  fully  acknowledged  to  be  wrong. 

"  (Signed)     OBED  HUSSEY." 

What  a  mixture  of  inconsistency  and  selfishness  this  letter  shows  T 
McCormick  had  "  filled  the  countrv  with  machines."  How  shallow, 


4:4: 

therefore,  his  first  objection,  that  it  had  "  not  proved  a  useful  inven- 
tion to  the  public."  Would  farmers  have  made  "  extensive  "  purchases 
of  reapers  in  the  40*5,  "  before  they  knew  the  real  merits  of  the  ma- 
chines "? 

Fifteen  hundred  McCormick  machines  were  made  that  year,  near- 
ly as  many  machines  as  Hussey  built  and  sold  during  the  thirty  years 
of  his  business  career.  Hussey  sold  and  was  paid  for  only  ten  ma- 
chines that  year;  yet  he  writes  to  the  Extension  Board  that  McCor- 
mick's  machines  "  are  going  out  of  use."  Hussey  followed  this  letter 
t>y  another  one,  two  days  later,  dated  Washington,  February  23,  1848. 
The  letter  is  as  follows: 

"  I  learned  very  recently  that  one  of  the  strongest  points  upon 
which  Mr.  McCormick  rests  his  claim  for  the  extension  of  his  patent 
is  that  he  is  ostensibly  the  inventor  of  the  reaping  machine.  Our  ma- 
chines being  so  different  it  never  occurred  to  me  that  such  an  opinion 
could  be  entertained  by  any  one,  and  up  to  the  21  st  inst.,  the  day 
on  which  I  became  aware  of  that  first,  I  had  made  no  preparation  to 
•combat  it.  I  understand  also  that  the  Examiner  in  the  Patent  Office 
has  given  it  as  his  opinion  that  our  machines  are  similar-  It  is  natural 
.for  me  to  infer  that  this  opinion  was  obtained  to  aid  your  Honorable 
Board  in  deciding  justly  for  all  parties.  The  supposition  that  such  evi- 
dence may  be  concluded  sufficient  in  the  present  case,  in  the  absence 
of  more  positive  evidence,  has  given  me  no  little  concern.  Our  ma- 
chines are  different  in  principle,  so  far  as  regards  these  points  which 
either  of  us  can  justly  claim  to  be  the  inventor  of.  I  will  admit  that 
our  machines  in  some  respects  are  similar,  but  those  points  of  similar- 
ity are  public  property  and  not  the  invention  of  either  of  us. 
I  trust  that  before  your  Honorable  Board  shall  decide  in  McCormick's 
favor,  on  the  ground  that  our  machines  are  similar,  you  will  permit 
me  to  lay  before  you  evidence  to  substantiate  what  I  have  here  as- 
serted. ...  I  have  made  little  money  by  my  patent.  One  county 
is  the  extent  of  territory  which  I  have  sold.  My  desire  has  been  to 
•confine  the  manufacture,  as  much  as  possible,  within  my  own  control, 
until  I  could  give  to  the  world  a  good  reaping  machine,  which  I  have 
•done  just  at  the  expiration  of  my  patent.  With  great  respect. 

"(Signed)     OBED  HUSSEY." 

This  letter  could  never  have -been  written  if  Mr-  Hussey,  in  1848, 
"had  known  himself  to  be  the  inventor  of  the  reaper.  He  says  that  the 
knowledge  that  the  Examiner  in  the  Patent  Office  had  "  given  it  as 
his  opinion  that  our  machines  are  similar  has  given  me  no  little  con- 
cern." Of  course  it  did  when  he  knew  full  well  that  McCormick's  ma- 
chine was  built  two  years  before  his  and  any  extension  of  McCor- 


45 

mick?s  patent  would  cover  his  use  of  a  knife  reciprocating  through 
fixed  fingers  driven  by  a  crank.  In  the  spring  of  1834  McCormick 
gave  Hussey  public  notice,  by  a  letter  in  the  Mechanics'  Magazine,  that 
his  machine  had  been  invented  and  used  in  1831,  and  that  he  claimed 
"  the  principle  of  cutting  by  a  toothed  instrument  receiving  motion 
from  a  crank  in  combination  with  iron  fingers."  The  Examiner's 
statement  that  the  machines  were  similar  in  the  cutting  apparatus  left 
Hussey  no  escape  unless  he  could  show  that  "  our  machines  are  dif- 
ferent in  principle.^  Hussey's  egotism  is  apparent  by  his  statement 
that  "  McCormick's  machine  fails  .  .  .  while  mine  is  taking  its 
place."  Nothing  short  of  an  hallucination  could  assume  that  his  ten 
machines  were  "taking"  the  place"  of  McCormick's  1,500.  The  ad- 
mission in  the  letter  that  not  until  1848  could  he  "  give  to  the  world  a 
good  reaping,  machine"  would  excite  sympathy  did  it  not  tell  so  con- 
clusively against  the  claim  of  the  perfection  of  his  machine  before  that 
date. 

From  the  order  of  the  Extension  Board  it  will  be  seen  that  on 
March  23,  1848,  the  Board  directed  Mr.  McCormick  to  furnish  "  satis- 
factory testimony,"  and  gave  him  until  Wednesday,,  the  2Qth  of  March, 
six  days,  in  which  to  obtain  it.  His  testimony,  already  filed,  was  in  the 
form  of  affidavits,  and  the  order  directed  "  that  due  notice  be  given  to 
the  said  Hussey  of  the  time  and  place  of  taking  said  depositions."  Mc- 
Cormick was  thus  allowed  in  the  month  of  March,  when  the  roads 
were  almost  impassable,  six  days  in  which  to  go  from  Washington  to 
Steele's  Tavern,  Rockbridge  County,  Va.,  a  journey  that  took  three 
days  even  when  the  roads  were  good.  The  going  and  coming  would' 
have  consumed  all  the  time  allotted  by  the  Board.  McCormick,  how- 
ever, had  anticipated  this  dog-in-the-manger  attitude  of  Hussey,  who 
had  just  failed  to  obtain  his  own  extension.  Some  days  before  he  had 
notified  Hussey  to  be  present  at  the  taking  of  depositions.  These  de- 
positions were  taken  at  Steele's  Tavern  on  the  i/th  and  i8th  days  of 
March,  1848,  before  a  Justice  of  the  Peace,  by  whom  they  were  to  be 
sealed  and  forwarded  to  Washington.  The  Justice,  as  shown  by  the 
postmark  of  the  letters,  did  not  mail  them  until  March  23rd,  and  they 
did  not  reach  Washington  until  the  afternoon  of  March  2Qth — too  late 
to  be  considered  by  the  Board  of  Commissioners.  The  evidence  which 
the  Board  states  they  did -consider  consisted,,  therefore,  in  the  affidavits, 


46 

which  McCormick  had  filed  and  which  were  to  be  replaced  by  the  evi- 
dence that  did  not  reach  Washington  in  time.  But  Senator  Brown 
of  Louisiana,  referring  afterwards  to  the  matter  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  stated  that  although  these  affidavits  were  examined  they  were 
not  deemed  entitled  to  consideration  because  they  lacked  the  certificate 
of  the  Governor  of  the  State,  showing  the  appointment  and  authority 
of  the  Justice  of  the  Peace.  All  this  goes  to  show  that  the  Board's 
decision  was  based  on  Page's  opinion.  On  the  first  point  in  that 
opinion — Ten  Eyck's  anticipation  of  the  reel — Page  made  a  mistake. 
On  the  second  point — Hussey's  priority  as  to  the  cutting  apparatus — 
the  facts  conclusively  prove  Page  was  in  error  on  this  also. 

This  regular  testimony  was  afterwards  submitted  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Patents  of  the  United  States  Senate,  at  the  time  McCormick 
asked  Congress  to  extend  his  patent.  Senator  Fessenden  of  Maine, 
the  chairman,  one  of  the  keenest  lawyers  of  his  day,  reported  to  the 
Senate  for  the  committee: 

"  The  testimony  was  taken  in  compliance  with  the  order  of  the 
Board,  and  by  the  proof  submitted  on  the  part  of  the  said  McCormick, 
it  appeared  that  he  invented  his  machine  and  first  practically  and  pub- 
licly tested  its  operation  in  the  harvest  of  1831.  That  no  proof  on  the 
part  of  the  sad  Hussey  appears  to  have  been  submitted  to  said  Board 
as  to  the  date  of  his  said  invention,  but  from  the  exhibits  referred  to 
your  Committee,  it  appears  that  his  machine  was  first  constructed  and 
operated  in  1833." 

Could  McCormick  have  known  the  tremendous  odds  against  him, 
he  would  have  hesitated  before  starting  on  his  trip  from  Steele's  Tav- 
ern to  Washington,  to  apply  for  his  extension,  in  the  winter  of  1847- 
48.  Single-handed  and  alone,  he  undertook  to  obtain  justice.  At  that 
time  extensions  were  granted  by  a  Board.  It  did  not  take  many  years 
for  the  Secretary  of  State  and  Solicitor  for  the  Treasury  to  be  dropped 
from  this  Board.  Brown,  of  Cincinnati;  Seymour  &  Morgan  and  Fitch, 
Backus  &  Co.,  of  Brockport;  Hite,  of  Virginia;  Rugg,  of  Illinois;  Eas- 
terly, of  Wisconsin;  Moore  &  Hascall,  of  Michigan;  Hussey,  of  Mary- 
land ;  Minturn  &  Allen,  of  Ohio,  besides  the  proprietors  of  every  wagon 
and  blacksmith  shop  in  the  country  that  wanted  to  build  reapers,  ap- 
pealed, through  their  senators  and  representatives,  by  petitions  and 
word  of  mouth,  to  prevent  the  extension  of  McCormick's  patent.  His 
licensees  were  tired  of  paying  $30  royalty  fee  for  each  machine,  and 
saw  a  way  to  stop  paying  it  by  defeating  the  extension. 


47 

Buchanan  and  Gillett  were  politicians.  Buchanan  was  already,  as 
Secretary  of  State,  trimming  his  sails  for  the  Presidential  nomination. 
Gillett  was  from  New  York,  and  so  great  was  the  political  pressure 
brought  to  bear  upon  him  that  he  could  not  be  impartial.  Burke,  the 
Commissioner  of  Patents,  and  the  one  who  from  his  position  knew 
something  of  the  justice  of  McCormick's  claim,  favored  the  extension, 
but  the  other  two  opposed  it.  The  injustice  of  the  refusal  to  grant  this 
extension  was  commented  on  in  the  United  States  Senate  by  such 
lawyers  as  Fessenden  and  Seward.  Other  senators  (also  skilled  law- 
yers) who  opposed  the  extension  in  the  Senate,  unhesitatingly  declared 
that  in  this  refusal  the  Board  of  Extension  clearly  exceeded  its  powers- 

Hussey  and  McCormick  at  once  appealed  to  Congress  for  exten- 
sions. McCormick,  especially,  had  no  chance  in  Congress.  His  pat- 
ent was  recognized  as  covering  the  essential  elements  of  all  successful 
reaping  machines,  and  so  strong  was  the  pressure  on  the  part  of  those 
who  wished  to  copy  it,  that  the  Legislatures  of  the  States  of  New  York, 
Michigan,  Indiana,  Tennessee  and  Ohio  passed  resolutions  instructing 
their  representatives  in  Congress  to  oppose  his  extension  Scarcely 
a  week  passed,  during  the  pendency  of  McCormick's  bill,  without  long 
remonstrances,  signed  by  hundreds  of  names.  They  came  from  all 
the  wheat-growing  states.  The  grounds  of  the  remonstrances  were 
that  McCormick's  patent  would  cover  every  reaping  machine  made, 
and  thus  levy  a  tribute  upon  the  farmers  of  all  the  grain-growing  states. 
The  further  ground  was  stated  that  McCormick  had  already  made  large 
profits,  and  it  was  therefore  unjust  to  give  him  such  a  monopoly.  The 
effect  of  these  long  remonstrances  upon  the  politicians  is  clearly  shown 
by  the  course  of  Senator  Douglas.  He  said : 

"  My  objection  is  not  to  Mr.  McCormick.  He  is  a  gentleman  for 
whom  I  have  the  highest  respect.  I  think  he  has  rendered  a  great 
sen-ice  to  his  country  by  his  invention.  ...  I  would  do  anything 
that  I  could  do  properly  to  serve  him,  as  he  has  served  his  country;  but, 
his  patent  having  expired,  and  the  right  to  manufacture  and  use  the 
machine  having  vested  in  the  public,  I  know  of  no  authority  to  divest 
that  right  and  put  it  back  in  him." 

Hussey  was  also  an  applicant  before  Congress  at  the  same  time, 
and  urged  his  claim  on  the  ground  of  his  poverty  and  his  failure  to 
receive  proper  compensation.  Certain  senators  made  pitiful  pleas  in 
his  behalf,  but  they  were  unsuccessful-  The  stories  of  his  poverty  were 


48 

admissions  of  the  failure  of  his  machine,  as  is  shown  by  this  quotation 
from  a  speech  of  Senator  Jones,  of  Tennessee:  % 

"  If  Mr.  Hussey's  was  such  an  excellent  machine  as  is  now  repre- 
sented, why,  in  the  name  of  God,  did  he  not  make  some  money  out 
of  it  in  fourteen  years?  The  patent  was  granted  in  1833 — twenty-three 
years  ago,  and  if  it  was  this  great  machine  which  my  friend  says  it 
was,  is  it  not  a  little  strange,  that  he  is  now  so  poor  as  to  be  repre- 
sented as  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  the  Senate,  on  the  grounds 
that  he  has  made  nothing  out  of  it?  " 

It  was  shortly  after  his  defeat  in  Congress  that  Hussey  subsidized 
the  long  list  of  patent  lawyers  heretofore  spoken  of.  They  took  up  his 
patent  of  1847  and  reissued  it  into  a  successful  patent— his  first  and 
only  success  in  his  long  experience  with  reapers. 

In  1859  McCormick  made  application  to  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents  for  the  extension  of  his  patent  of  1845;  an<^  in  1860  he  made 
application  for  an  extension  of  his  patent  of  1847.  These  extensions 
were  opposed  by  every  builder  of  reapers  in  America.  Every  local 
reaper  agent  throughout  the  country  had  blanks  sent  him  which  he  was 
urged  to  present  to  the  farmers  for  their  signatures,  protesting  against 
the  extensions.  The  letter  of  Lee  &  Fisher  shows  the  combination  that 
was  arrayed  against  McCormick.  So  powerful  was  the  political  pull 
possessed  by  these  opponents  that  a  bill  was  passed  in  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  extending  the  protestants'  time  for  the  taking  of 
testimony  sixy  days,  thus  carrying  the  consideration  of  the  extension 
to  a  new  Commissioner  of  Patents,  who  had  been  instructed  by  his  own 
state,  Indiana,  to  refuse  the  extension.  James  Buchanan,  as  one  of 
his  last  official  acts,  signed  this  bill.  The  political  pressure  was  so 
great  upon  Commissioner  Holloway  that  he  refused  the  extension,  but 
stated  that: 

"  Cyrus  Hall  McCormick  is  an  inventor  whose  fame,  while  he  is 
yet  living,  had  spread  around  the  world.  His  genius  has  done  honor 
to  his  own  country,  and  has  been  the  admiration  of  foreign  nations,  and 
he  will  live  in  the  grateful  recollection  of  mankind  as  long  as  the  reap- 
ing machine  is  employed  in  gathering  the  harvest." 

Summarizing  on  the  treatment  of  McCormick  and  Hussey  by  the 
Government : 

(a)  Both  Hussey  and  McCormick  applied  to  the  Board  for  an  ex- 
tension of  their  patents  of  1833  and  1834.  Both  were  refused  on  techni- 
calities. 


49 

(b)  McCormick  was  ordered  to  take  testimony  showing  the  pri- 
ority of  his  reaper  over  Hussey's.    This  testimony  was  not  considered, 
as  it  did  not  reach  Washington  in  time.     Hussey,  however,  attended 
this  testimony  and  filed  a  brief  in  which  he  admitted  the  priority  of 
McCormick's  machine. 

(c)  Hussey  and  McCormick  applied  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  for  an  extension  of  their  patents  of  1833  and  1834.     Both  were 
refused. 

(d)  McCormick  applied  to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  for  an 
extension  of  his  patents  of  1845  an^  1847  and  Hussey  applied  for  an 
extension  of  his  patent  of  1847.    McCormick's  extensions  were  refused, 
because  of  political  manipulations  and  large  profits  that  he  had  made 
upon  his  machine,  but  with  an  encomium  upon  his  position  as  inventor 
that  was  worth  more  than  any  patent  extension.    Hussey  having  made 
no  profit  from  manufacturing  his  machine,  was  allowed  an  extension 
of  his  patent  of  '47,  he  making  oath  to  the  fact  that  his  machine  built 
in  accordance  with  his  patent  of  1833  was  a  failure. 

(e)  Hussey  admitted  that  the  scalloped  sickle  was  old,  and  the 
double  guard  was  old,  and  that  his  invention  consisted  only  in  the  com- 
bination of  the  two  old  elements — the  old  scalloped  sickle  and  the  old 
double  guard. 

I  submit  that  the  showing  made  by  these  two  inventors  while  en- 
deavoring to  extend  their  patents  clearly  proves  McCormick  the  in- 
ventor of  the  reaper. 


IV.-HUSSEY'S  VIEW  OF  HIS  AND  MC  CORMICK'S  MACHINES. 

The  Protest  contains  the  following  quotations  from  the  brief  filed 
by  Hussey  before  the  Board  of  Extension: 

"  I  believe  that  I  have  established  in  this  review  of  the  evidence 
taken  in  Augusta  County,  Va.,  and  by  the  books  referred  to,  the  fol- 
lowing points: 

"  (i)  That  C.  H.  McCormick  is  not  the  inventor  of  the  arrange- 
ment by  which  the  horses  draw  the  machine. 

"  (2)  That  he  is  not  the  inventor  of  the  platform. 

"  (3)  That  he  is  not  the  inventor  of  the  movement  of  the  cutter  by 
means  of  a  crank. 

"  (4)  That  he  is  not  the  inventor  of  the  double  knives,  even  if  it 
were  satisfactorily  proved  that  he  used  them  prior  to  the  date  of  my  pat- 
ent, which  is  questionable. 


50 

16  (5)  Proves  the  abandonment  of  the  double  knives  by  C.  H.  Me- 
Cormick,  which  abandonment  makes  it  public  by  the  patent  laws,  even 
if  he  were  not  the  bona  fide  inventor  of  the  same. 

"  In  the  above  five  points  are  contained  all  the  material  points  in 
which  our  machines  are  said  to  be  similar.  OBED  HUSSEY." 

This  quotation,  carefully  selected  and  shrewdly  placed,  as  it  is 
in  the  Protest,  is  misleading.  It  conveys  the  idea  that  Hussey,  and 
not  McCormick,  is  the  inventor  of  these  essential  features. 

The  following  is  quoted  from  the  same  brief: 

"  Several  witnesses  testified  to  the  following  particulars  in  the 
McCormick  machine,  which  appeared  to  conflict  with  mine: 

"  (i)  The  horses  draw  the  machine  and  walk  beside  the  grain. 

"  (2)  The  cutter  is  moved  by  connection  wth  a  crank, 
i  he  wheat  falls  on  the  platform. 

"  (4)  The  fingers  were  at  one  time  double  (that  is,  one  part  of  the 
finger  was  above  and  the  other  part  below  the  edge  of  the  sickle  or 
cutter). 

"  (5)  The  witness  testified  that  C.  H.  McCormick  abandoned  the 
double  finger  in  1842  or  1843. 

"  I  will  now  proceed  to  show  by  the  references  that  the  four  points 
testified  to  are  not  the  invention  of  McCormick. 

"  First  Point. — The  horses  draw  the  machine.  For  this  I  refer 
to  Rees'  New  Cyclopaedia,  where  a  machine  is  described,  invented  by 
Mr.  Plunket;  also  to  the  Edinburg  Cyclopedia,  where  a  reaper  is  de- 
scribed, invented  by  Mr.  Gladstone,  both  of  which  embrace  this  point 

"  Second  Point. — The  cutter  is  moved  by  a  crank.  I  refer  to 
Louden's  Encyclopedia  of  Agriculture,  where  the  reaper  is  described 
invented  by  Mr.  Bell,  describing  this  point. 

"  Third  Point. — I  refer  to  the  same  work  on  the  adjoining  page. 

"  Fourth  Point. — Double  fingers.  I  refer  to  the  Edinburg  Ency- 
clopedia now  in  the  library  of  the  Patent  Office,  where  a  reaping  ma- 
chine is  described  invented  by  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  improved  by  Mr. 
Scott,  which  is  illustrated  in  plates  478  and  479,  in  which  revolving 
blades  pass  through  fingers  which  support  the  straw  against  the  edge 
of  the  blade.  Fig.  5,  plate  479,  shows  the  blades,  some  of  which  are 
represented  entering  the  space,  some  leaving  it,  and  some  with  their 
points  in  the  space. 

"  The  witness  further  testified  that  McCormick's  reaper  has  a 
draw  sickle  blade,  and  a  reel  for  the  blade,  which  by  its  revolutions  in 
the  heads  of  the  wheat  is  designed  to  draw  the  wheat  back  to  be  cut 
and  to  deposit  the  same  on  the  platform  when  cut.  I  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  sickle  and  reel  here  described.  They  make  no  part  of  my 
reaper.  I  leave  them  to  Mr.  McCormick,  while  I  wish  to  place  in  con- 
trast my  own  cutter,  which  is  composed  of  a  row  of  blades  of  a  lancet 
point  shape  and  arranged  on  a  rod  side  by  side.  I  do  not  claim  to  be 
the  inventor  of  such  blades.  I  claim  them  in  combination  with,  and 


51 

vibrating  through  or  into  double  fingers,  a  combination  which  I  be- 
lieve to  be  substantially  my  own  invention,  and  entirely  different  from 
McCormick's,  and  on  which  my  machine  entirely  depends  for  its  ef- 
ficiency as  a  reaper.  None  of  these  latter  points,  either  combined  or 
separate,  are  found  in  McCormick's  reaper,  he  having  abandoned  the 
double  fingers  four  or  five  years  ago." 

The  reason  for  Hussey's  tactics  is  plain.  He  had  been  defeated  in 
his  application  for  extension.  He  knew  that  McCormick  was  in  a  po- 
sition where  he  could  control  the  building  of  all  reapers  with  a  knife, 
reciprocated  by  a  crank  with  fixed  fingers  to  prevent  the  grain  moving 
with  the  knife.  Hussey's  only  hope,  therefore,  was  to  destroy  Mc- 
Cormick's patent  by  seeking  to  anticipate  it  in  old  publications  of  ma- 
chines which  had  never  been  built,  or  if  built  had  never  operated.  The 
only  way  he  could  do  this  was  to  pick  out  a  feature  here  and 
there  from  the  old  pictures.  He  took  a  crank  from  one,  a  side  draft 
from  another  and  the  double  fingers  from  another.  This  plan  led  him 
into  trouble  with  his  own  machines,  as  his  lancet-point  knives  were 
old  and  his  double  fingers  were  old.  To  meet  this  difficulty,  he  set  up, 
for  himself,  the  claim  of  a  combination-  He  did  not  minimize  his  own 
invention.  Manning's  patent  shows  the  lancet-shaped  knives,  and  Mc- 
Cormick had  the  double  fingers  in  1831.  But  he  did  minimize  Mc- 
Cormick's. In  none  of  the  machines  to  which  he  referred  nor  in  any 
machine  made  before  McCormick's  is  there  a  reciprocating  knife  driven 
by  a  crank  working  in  combination  with  a  reel ;  in  none  is  there  a  di- 
vider; in  none  is  there  a  reel  working  in  combination  with  a  divider ; 
in  none  is  there  a  reciprocating  knife  driven  by  a  crank,  with  fixed 
fingers  to  prevent  the  straw  from  moving  with  the  knife ;  in  none  is 
there  a  platform  to  receive  the  grain,  so  attached  to  the  machine  that 
a  bundle  can  be  raked  from  it  to  the  side,  out  of  the  way  of  the  machine, 
in  the  next  round  of  the  field ;  in  none  is  there  a  machine  mounted 
upon  two  wheels,  the  major  part  of  the  weight  resting  upon  the  main 
wheel,  thus  giving  sufficient  traction  to  operate  the  machine ;  in  none 
is  there  a  side  draft  on  a  machine,  wherein  the  major  part  of  the 
weight  rests  upon  one  wheel,  and  that  wheel  located  behind  the  team. 
These  features  are  McCormick's  invention,  and  neither  Bell,  Scott, 
Gladstone,  Phmket,  nor  any  of  the  dreamers  and  builders  of  unsuccessful 
reapers  before  McCormick,  contains  these  features.  Place  these  essential 
elements  in  the  scale  on  one  side  and  alloiv  Hussey  the  only  combination 


52 

which  he  claims  to  have  invented,  and  let  the  result  determine  the  ques- 
tion of  the  invention  of  the  reaping  machine. 

Summarizing  on  Hussey's  idea  of  his  and  McCormick's  machines: 

(a)  Hussey  admitted  McCormick  to  be  the  first,  and  therefore 
picked  out  of  his  own  machine  a  minor  feature  not  in  McCormick's, 
and  magnified  this  feature. 

(b)  All  features  common  to  the  two  machines  he  called  old  and 
minimized  their  value. 

(c)  His   one   feature,    which   the   Protest   has    magnified   into   a 
mighty  reaping  machine,  has  on  investigation  shrunk  to  a  shrivelled 
combination  of  two  old  elements,  both  of  which  have  been  used  before 
for  the  same  purpose  as  Hussey  used  them. 

(d)  McCormicks  machine,  however,  proves  Hussey's  minimizing 
statements  wrong,  as  it  contains  the  essential  elements  of  the  reaping 
machine  which  were  original  with  McCormick,  and  without  which  no 
successful  reaper  can  be  made  even  to  this  day. 

It  is  submitted  that  by  Hussey's  own  statements  McCormick  is 
the  inventor. 

V.-IN  CONCLUSION. 

It  is  too  soon  to  expect  an  unbiased  judgment  of  McCor- 
mick's invention.  The  antagonisms  engendered  by  an  energetic 
business  career  of  forty  years  are  too  strong;  the  defeats  that  have 
been  suffered  by  the  rival  reaper  builders  at  every  great  Exposition 
that  has  ever  been  held  are  still  too  fresh  in  memory ;  the  failure  of  the 
more  than  800  different  concerns  that  have  undertaken  to  build  har- 
vesting machines  in  the  past  fifty  years  and  that  have  succumbed  to 
the  competition  of  the  MoCormick  has  left  enemies;  in  all  these  cases 
time  is  needed  to  modify  their  animosities  and  cause  them  to  forget 
their  jealousies.  Many  years  may  therefore  elapse  before  the  credit 
and  honor  that  belongs  to  the  successful  invention  of  the  reaper  will 
be  willingly  paid,  by  the  competing  reaper  builders,  to  Cyrus  H.  Mc- 
Cormick, the  man  who  invented  the  first  practical  reaping  machine. 
Disinterested  observers  of  the  course  of  events,  however,  have  placed 
on  record  their  opinions,  and  the  judgment  of  some  of  these  men  of 
clear  and  unbiased  mind  will  carry  more  weight  than  pages  written 
by  rival  builders  of  reapers. 


53 

"  In  agriculture,  it  (McCormick's  reaper)  is,  in  my  view,  as  im- 
portant a  labor-saving  device  as  the  spinning  jenny  and  power-loom 
in  manufacture-  It  is  one  of  those  great  and  valuable  inventions 
which  commence  a  new  era  in  the  progress  of  improvement,  and  whose 
beneficial  influence  is  felt  in  all  coming  time." — (From  the  report  of 
Edmund  Burke,  Commissioner  of  Patents,  1848.) 

"  The  McCormick  reaper  is  the  most  valuable  article  contributed 
to  this  exhibition,  and  for  its  originality  and  value  and  its  perfect  work 
in  the  field,  it  is  awarded  the  Council  Medal." — (Extract  from  the  re- 
port of  the  Council  of  Juries,  First  World's  Fair,  London,  1851.) 

"  The  McCormick  reaper  is  the  type  after  which  all  others  are 
made,  and  it  is,  as  well,  the  one  which  worked  the  best  in  all  the  trials. 
On  the  McCormick  invention  all  other  grain  cutting  machines  are 
based,  and  not  one  of  the  imitations  equals  the  original.'' — (Report  of 
the  Juries  of  the  Paris  International  Exposition,  1855,  awarding  to  the 
McCormick  reaper  the  Grand  Gold  Medal.) 

In  1863  a  great  International  Exposition  was  held  at  Hamburg. 
The  McCormick  reaper  obtained  the  Grand  Prize,  and  the  jury  stated 
that  "  McCormick  was  the  inventor  of  the  features  that  gave  value  to 
the  reaping  machine."  On  his  way  home  he  stopped  in  England,  and 
the  editor  of  the  North  British  Agriculturist  attacked  the  position  of 
the  Hamburg  jury,  urging  that  Bell  was  the  inventor  of  the  reaper. 
Mr.  McCormick  answered  him  in  several  communications,  through  his 
own  columns,  and  the  following  quotation  from  the  Mark  Lane  Ex- 
press, the  leading  agricultural  paper  of  England,  under  date  of  Octo- 
ber 26,  1863,  will  show  the  outcome  of  this  controversy: 

"  While  the  editor  of  the  North  British  Agriculturist  shows  much 
zeal  for  his  countryman's  (Rev.  Patrick  Bell)  machine,  we  must  say  we 
think  the  facts  and  arguments  of  Mr.  McCormick  are  presented  with 
a  clearness  and  force  wrhich  seem  unanswerable  in  establishing  that  he 
was  the  first  to  invent  the  leading  features  of  the  successful  reaping 
machine  of  the  present  day;  that  he  continued  regularly  the  improve- 
ment and  prosecution  of  the  same  to  the  perfection  of  the  machine, 
and  that  this,  in  the  slightly  varied  language  of  the  different  scientific 
juries  of  the  various  great  international  expositions  of  the  world,  con- 
stitutes the  invention  of  the  reaping  machine." 

As  an  expert  opinion,  the  following  is  of  great  value: 

"  While  there  have  been  many  valuable  improvements  in  detail, 
it  may  be  truthfully  said,  that  to  dispense  with  Cyrus  H.  McCormick's 
invention  would  be  to  wipe  every  reaper  out  of  existence." 

"  The  original  machine  of  Mr-  McCormick  embraces  the  follow- 
ing features:  The  serrated,  reciprocating  blade,  operating  in  fingers 
or  supports  to  the  grain  being  cut.  The  platform  for  receiving  the  cut 


54 

grain  deposited  thereon  by  the  reel  and  from  which  it  was  raked  to  the 
side  in  gavels  ready  to  bind.  A  divider  to  separate  the  grain  to  be 
cut  from  that  left  standing."  (Knight's  New  Mechanical  Dictionary, 
by  Edward  H.  Knight,  A.  M'.,  L.L.  D.,  in  charge  of  the  classifications 
and  publications  of  the  United  States  Patent  Office.) 

Professor  Roberts,  of  Cornell  University,  perhaps  the  best-known 
agriculturist  in  America,  and  who  takes  great  interest  in  farm  imple- 
ments, writing  in  Johnson's  Universal  Encyclopedia  on  the  reaping 
machine,  states : 

"In  1831  the  machine  of  Cyrus  H.  McCormick  was  invented  and 
successfully  operated.  This  machine  for  the  first  time  was  an  organ- 
ized instrument,  containing  practical  devices  that  have  been  incorpo- 
rated in  every  successful  reaper  made  since.  As  built  and  tested  in  the 
fall  of  1831  it  contained  the  reciprocating  knife  moving  through  fixed 
fingers  to  sever  the  grain,  the  platform  which  received  the  grain,  the 
reel  to  hold  the  grain  for  the  knife,  and  to  incline  it  upon  the  platform, 
and  the  divider  projecting  ahead  of  the  knife  to  separate  the  grain 
to  be  cut  from  that  left  standing.  The  horses  traveled  ahead  of  the 
machine,  and  beside  the  standing  grain.  It  was  mounted  upon  two 
wheels,  and  the  motion  to  move  the  operating  parts  was  derived  from 
the  outer  wheel." 

While  in  Paris  in  1878  Mr.  McCormick  was  elected  a  member 
of  the  French  Academy  of  Science,  as  "  having  done  more  for  the 
cause  of  agriculture  than  any  other  living  man. " 

In  the  article  written  for  the  Mechanics'  Magazine  of  May,  1834, 
Mr.  McCormick  asserted  his  claim  to  the  invention  of  the  reaping 
machine.  Throughout  his  life  he  defended  his  position  whenever 
attacked  by  his  rivals  in  business.  At  different  times  Ogle,  Bell,  Ran- 
dall and  others  have  been  put  forward  as  the  inventor.  The  latest 
name  is  that  of  Hussey.  Having  shown  thus  fully  what  Hussey  did, 
it  will  be  interesting  to  learn  who  will  next  be  named  inventor  by 

the  rival  manufacturers  of  reapers. 

R.  B.  SWIFT, 
Chicago,  April  10,  1897. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


6   1925 


JUN9    '64-9  PM 


>yc 

RECD  CD 


HIN1 9197055 


? 

&  WBPA  *w  ^ , 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


